Forum > General Discussion

Non-routine News

<< < (26/54) > >>

AGelbert:
 

Bali volcanic eruption seems imminent, after massive seismic activity increase
LAST UPDATED ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2017 AT 5:36 PM BY MIHAI ANDREI

http://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/bali-volcano-eruption-26092017/

AGelbert:
Coast Guard Releases El Faro Investigation Report: Here’s the Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
October 1, 2017 by gCaptain

SS El Faro. Photo: Tote Maritime
Full article at link below:

http://gcaptain.com/coast-guard-releases-el-faro-investigation-report-summary-conclusions-recommendations/

Agelbert NOTE: They unfortunately refuse to admit a giant wave hit El Faro, but at least they recommended, among other things, that these types of ships no longer have the open lifeboats, as I had hoped they would. 


Excerpt from an article I wrote on future Ocean Wave activity:

* Agelbert NOTE: The container ship El Faro sank during Hurricane Juaquin on October 1, 2015. All 33 crewmembers perished. The lifeboats on El Faro were also 65 feet above the water line. From the condition of the lifeboat that was recovered, the evidence indicates a giant wave sank the El Faro. The authorities have not admitted this as of yet. But I am not the only one that strongly suspects that the condition of the lifeboat is evidence that a giant wave sank El Faro (Spanish for "Lighthouse"). 

Coast Guard Investigates El Faro Life Boat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQv_NxVBge0&feature=player_embedded

Warming oceans are with us now and increasing the violence of the oceans. By chance, I recorded the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) off the East Coast of the USA the day before Hurricane Juaquin sank the El Faro container ship. Here's the September 30, 2015 (8 day average - proof  that it was really consistently hot out there!) screenshot:

Notice all that ocean surface at 27.8C (82F) hurricane forming minimum temperature or greater.
Here's two days later (one day after the El Faro Container ship sank). I superimposed the hurricane location. It is a one day average SST so the conditions when the El Faro sank are displayed.  I was not aware that the El Faro had been lost at the time I made these screenshots. Notice the cooler spot on the ocean precisely where Hurricane Juaquin is lashing El Faro. A hurricane transfers several degrees of water temperature directly to the atmosphere, which, in turn, increases the ferocity of the winds. Ferocious winds produce ferocious waves.


El Faro departed Jacksonville en route to San Juan, Puerto Rico.



The El Faro was one of TWO cargo ships that went down because of Hurricane Juaquin (the 215 ft. MV Minouche that went down didn't make national headlines, because people, perhaps, might start to get "unnecessarily alarmed" about the increasing shipping losses from our increasingly violent oceans). All 12 crew of the MV Minouche were rescued.

MV Minouche
The Coast Guard pilot's voice shakes as he describes conditions they have never before experienced in rescue attempts when they were searching for the El Faro and rescuing the crew of the MV Minouche.

https://youtu.be/_xFT9JD2f1A
US Coast Guard search for El Faro; 12 rescued from MV MinoucheThe El Faro, that went down with a crew of 33, all lost, 294 cars, trailers and trucks, along with hundreds of containers, had a type of lifeboat that is a death boat in stormy seas.

Here's a comment by a fellow who's handle is deckofficer:

Hurricane Joaquin vs. M/V El Faro's final voyage, weather and decision-making...

I guess the only point I would like to make is some owners don't seem to value the lives of their crews. Schedules are tight and safety equipment is in many cases the bare minimum for certification. In the case of SS El Faro (it is my understanding this is a steam ship, not diesel) the open life boats as high on the super structure as they were meets requirements but certainly doesn't offer the all sea state conditions of deployment as free fall enclosed life boat capsules. If these souls are lost at sea, it is maddening that the simple added investment of better emergency egress would have saved their lives. I have done more lifeboat drills than I can remember, and for the older style gravity systems there was a good reason these drills only occurred on calm days.

When sea state is overwhelming and you have lost propulsion and need to abandon ship, do you want this....



Or this....

https://youtu.be/a7giEX-vIyo

Bob
USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f122/hurricane-joaquin-vs-m-v-el-faros-final-voyage-weather-and-decsion-making-154191-3.html

AGelbert:
Watch Earthquaqes from 2001 to 2015https://youtu.be/ph7Eczs-nTI

AGelbert:

--- Quote from: Eddie on November 06, 2017, 10:51:54 am ---
--- Quote from: knarf on November 06, 2017, 07:44:05 am ---
--- Quote from: RE on November 06, 2017, 07:09:29 am ---That's getting closer to the truth, but what it really is is a FU CK ED UP SOCIETY problem.

There were plenty of gunz around 20 years ago, but you didn't see a mass shooting every month.  This is a manifestation of collapse psychology.

RE

--- End quote ---

"Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do?"

What exactly is wrong with the "guns don’t kill people, people do" argument?

Everyone's heard it, a lot of people believe it, and some even think it settles the whole gun control debate. (After all, that’s why it’s the NRA’s slogan, and why people brandish it on bumper stickers and post it endlessly on facebook.) Others, however, think the argument is terrible. Interestingly, however, I can’t find a solid consensus regarding what exactly is wrong with it. Some think it begs the question, others think it equivocates, still others think it merely oversimplifies the issue. Consequently, especially as a logician, I think it’s an argument worth some examination. 

Some might not want to read any further, thinking that by using the Sandy Hook tragedy to argue for gun regulations I am politicizing that tragedy. There are a couple of things to say in response. First, I'm not going to argue for or against gun regulations. I am simply going to examine this argument. There may still be good arguments against gun regulation, or there may not. All I want to know is whether or not this argument is one. Secondly, the notion that the political ramifications of a tragedy should not be discussed in the wake of that tragedy is itself fallacious. We do need to make sure our heads are emotionally clear before having a serious discussion, but it is not disrespectful to the victims of a tragedy to discuss possible ways that we might avoid similar tragedies. Besides, tragedies such as Sandy Hook have now become so common that if we are not allowed to speak about gun regulations in the wake of such tragedies, we will never be allowed to speak about it at all. Truth be told, the notion that one shouldn't talk about such things after a tragedy is a political notion itself, one invented by those against gun regulations because they know that people are more in favor of gun regulations after such tragedies.

So let us turn to the argument itself: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” The first thing to notice is that the argument has no stated conclusion. What follows? Since the argument is usually given in the context of a discussion about gun regulation, by gun advocates, I assume the conclusion has something to do with that. But what exactly? That there should be no gun regulation at all? That there should not be more gun regulation than there is? That the increase in mass killings done with guns is irrelevant to whether or not there should be gun regulations? Who knows? And an argument without an obvious conclusion is hardly an argument at all.

In any event, it doesn't matter because no conclusion about gun regulation logically follows from these two statements. To understand why, let me articulate the difference between ultimate, intermediate, and proximate causes. Consider the words you are looking at right now. What "caused" the words to appear as they are appearing to you right now? You might say that I, the author, did; but that is not the whole story. The whole story is long and includes my fingers typing on a keyboard, the creation of an MSWord document, me posting the words on my blog, and so on. There is a long "causal chain" standing between my intention to type these words and the emission of light from your screen to your eyes. The causal chain starts with me; I am the ultimate cause. Other subsequent links in the chain—my typing, Justin’s postings, your clicking—are “intermediate causes." And the light emitting from your screen is the proximate cause—the thing or event most immediately responsible for your current experience.

The argument under consideration clarifies that, when it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes—the end of a causal chain that started with a person deciding to murder. But nothing follows from these facts about whether or not guns should be regulated. Such facts are true for all criminal activity, and even noncriminal activity that harms others: The ultimate cause is found in some decision that a person made; the event, activity, or object that most directly did the harming was only a proximate cause. But this tells us nothing about whether or not the proximate cause in question should be regulated or made illegal. For example, consider the following argument:

"Bazookas don't kill people; people kill people."

Although it is obviously true that bazookas are only proximate causes, it clearly does not follow that bazookas should be legal. Yes, bazookas don't kill people, people do—but bazookas make it a lot easier for people to kill people, and in great numbers. Further, a bazooka would not be useful for much else besides mass murders. Bazookas clearly should be illegal and the fact that they would only be proximate causes to mass murders does not change this. In fact, it is totally irrelevant to the issue; it has nothing to do the fact that they should be illegal. Why? Because other things are proximate causes to people’s demise, but obviously shouldn’t be illegal. For example, consider this argument (given in the aftermath of a bad car accident):

"Cars don't kill people; people kill people."

Obviously cars should not be illegal, but notice that this has nothing to do with the fact that they are proximate causes. Of course, they should be regulated; I shouldn't be allowed to go onto the highway in a car with no brakes. But all of that has to do what cars are for (they are not made for killing people), what role they play in society (it couldn't function without them) and so on. It's a complicated issue—one to which pointing out that cars are merely proximate causes to some deaths contributes nothing.

So clearly the argument under consideration, and any other argument that merely points out that guns are proximate causes ("stop blaming the guns and start blaming the person") is fallacious. Since people can't seem to agree on what fallacy such arguments employ, I would like to give a name to the mistake I have identified within them: "the fallacy of mistaking the relevance of proximate causation."

So, should all guns be illegal? After all, like the bazooka, they do make killing people in mass easier to accomplish. Then again, like cars, using them for mass murder is not their intended function. Most people agree that they should at least be regulated (at the least, most think that all gun sales should require a background check). But how strictly should they be regulated? Perhaps very strictly. After all, states with stricter gun regulations have fewer gun related deaths. Then again, there may be philosophical issues related to the protection of liberty that trump such utilitarian concerns. It’s a complicated issue.

And that’s my point: It’s a complicated issue. There are lots of relevant factors involved, but the fact that guns are proximate causes isn't one of them. So the next time someone quotes the NRA slogan, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," in an attempt to end a discussion about gun control, do me a favor: point out that they have “mistaken the relevance of proximate causation,” pause briefly to enjoy the confused look on their face, and then patiently explain the fallacy to them.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201302/guns-don-t-kill-people-people-do

--- End quote ---

I am pretty sure that nutcase would not have managed to kill 26 innocent people if he were armed with a baseball bat, although he might have gotten one or two.

We had another killing in Austin over the weekend. Interestingly, the only guy killed was a guy who was a professional guide, and ran a hunting ranch owned by his parents for the last several years. The shooter managed to wound three or four others before he killed the victim, who was trying to talk him down.

Motivation? The shooter was just drunk on his ass, and angry about something. He knew everyone he shot.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: RE on November 06, 2017, 10:54:09 am ---
--- Quote from: Eddie on November 06, 2017, 10:51:54 am ---
I am pretty sure that nutcase would not have managed to kill 26 innocent people if he were armed with a baseball bat, although he might have gotten one or two.

--- End quote ---

How about if he was armed with a Hummer or a Pipe Bomb?

RE

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: RE on November 06, 2017, 02:12:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: Eddie on November 06, 2017, 12:05:07 pm ---Moron plus pipe bomb often equals Darwinian selection. In Texas we have pickup trucks bigger than Hummers. Lots of them.

No pedestrian/bike paths to barrel down in rural Texas. To take out a whole church you'd have to making pretty good speed on impact.

--- End quote ---

You don't HAVE to hit them inside the Church.  You can wait until they come streaming out after services are over.  You also don't HAVE to use a Hummer.  You could use a Freightliner and load the trailer with bricks.  You would flatten a stick built church like that hitting it at 80 or so.  As to Darwinian Selection with Pipe Bombs, I am unaware of any morons recently blowing themselves up this way.  Can you cite an example?

In any event, it's hard to imagine how they could collect up all the gunz distributed around Amerika.  You could ban new gun sales, but there would be a thriving Black Market and gunz would "leak" across the Mexican border.  Then you have your rednecks and Brandon "Lexington & Concord" Smiths who vow "You'll only take my gun over my cold, dead body."  I forsee some nice Waco style standoffs with the FBI & ATF.

RE

--- End quote ---


If "Darwinian selection" (an EXCLUSIVELY SUBTRACTIVE PROCESS) had beans to do with the increase in violence in our society, we would have less violence, not more, as the more violent among us got killed off (i.e. selected out).

I do not want to get into a long drawn out argument about the violent humans getting around that by makin' babies before they get to the violent stage, thereby increasing their destructive gene pool percentage, rather than reducing it. That's bullshit on many levels, all of them objecctively scientific.

Classifying this increase in violence as an outlier/moronic/not systemic phenomenon is technically accurate but scientifically erroneous, simply because violence has increased in all areas of human society from sexual harrassment to bullying to greed based ruthless exploitation.

In all these areas people don't always get killed right away, but this breeds more anger, frustration and, of course, violence. So, the increase in violence is SYSTEMIC, not an outlier result of "low IQ" humans.

So this is not about intelligence levels, adabtability, evolution or guns, for that matter.

Of course Eddie is right that a baseball bat or some other blunt weapon will slow down the kill rate. RE is right that we have lots of machinery around to jack up the kill rate, so limiting everyone to a murf bat won't solve this problem of people going postal.

THIS IS ABOUT EVIL! Until we address the CAUSE of this EVIL (i.e. lack of EMPATHY for fellow earthlings) in our society, THINGS WILL GET WORSE, not better.

GWarnock:
Irresponsible government, bought and paid for!!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page