Leaf Blower Issue A Thorny Public Policy Debate

While I generally agree with your skeptical and science-based positions, Dixon, I think you are OTL (out-to-lunch) on this issue. I responded to Lordbear's post expressly because he said people are "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy...". You have changed his statement with your own qualifying words. He said what he said, and I responded. Pretty simple. I did indeed read it as a stupid statement. With you adding qualifiers to someone else's statement, it reads differently and is not so stupid.

When you add that only one person screwing up makes "... a regulation necessary to protect the public", it makes me wonder at the value of your logic.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Cheingrand, the problem I have with the way you responded to Lordbear is that you spoke as if he was saying that those traits ("...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others...) are the dominant traits of people, or that everyone, or nearly everyone, has those traits to a degree that causes problems. Or as you put it, that those are the "default characteristics of all people". But Lordbear's statement which you quote above neither says nor implies that. His phrasing could just as readily be interpreted as "(some) people" rather than "(most or all) people". You chose to interpret it in a way that made it stupid, then fallaciously dismissed his reasoning on the basis of your misinterpretation. That's the "straw figure" fallacy.

We don't need a majority of people screwing up to make a regulation necessary to protect the public. It only takes a few, or even just one, who is "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others...", and every community has a few.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

While I generally agree with your skeptical and science-based positions, Dixon...

---

Thanks for the kind words, Cheingrand.

Quote:

---

...I think you are OTL (out-to-lunch) on this issue. I responded to Lordbear's post expressly because he said people are "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy...". You have changed his statement with your own qualifying words. He said what he said, and I responded. Pretty simple. I did indeed read it as a stupid statement. With you adding qualifiers to someone else's statement, it reads differently and is not so stupid.

---

I guess I didn't make my point clear. My added qualifiers were meant to explicate 1. The reasonable meaning that Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean), and 2. The needlessly negative assumption you clearly made about his meaning. Do you see, Cheingrand, that Lordbear's wording did not imply, as you claimed, that those bad traits were the "default characteristics of all people"? Talk about changing someone's statement with your own words! Your arbitrarily choosing the negative assumption that he meant something unreasonable is the "straw figure" fallacy in action, and violates the basic critical thinking principle known as "intellectual fairness".

Quote:

---

When you add that only one person screwing up makes "... a regulation necessary to protect the public", it makes me wonder at the value of your logic.

---

So then, if there were only one murderer, one rapist, one thief, or whatever, there'd be no need to regulate his/her behavior? Just let him keep on rapin', murderin' or whatever? These crimes are extreme examples, but my point is that the issue of whether a behavior needs regulation has little if anything to do with how many people are victimized thereby. And that's why quibbling about whether Lordbear meant that most folks were "...lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others...", or that just some folks are, is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of whether the behavior should be regulated.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

My added qualifiers were meant to explicate 1. The reasonable meaning that Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean), and 2. The needlessly negative assumption you clearly made about his meaning.

---

My assumption was based on the statement as stated. If I read his clear statement and try to assess what "...Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean)...", I am putting my own opinions over the opinion of the writer. Lordbear said what he said. It's pretty simple. If he meant something other than what he said, I would be a mind-reader (and I know you don't believe in mind-readers, Dixon) to attempt to differently decipher his words.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

My assumption was based on the statement as stated. If I read his clear statement and try to assess what "...Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean)...", I am putting my own opinions over the opinion of the writer. Lordbear said what he said. It's pretty simple. ...

---

At the risk of beating a rapidly dying horse, Cheingrand, I'll just say this: Your response to Lordbear was not to "the statement as stated". It was to your negativized interpretation of it ( that those bad traits were the "default characteristics of all people", as you put it). That interpretation was simply not implied by Lordbear's statement; it came from you.

>>>At the risk of beating a rapidly dying horse...

I object vigorously to beating the horse. Just shoot him.

Seriously, though... Could someone tell me, please, why a leaf-blower is of significant utility in caring for a piece of property? We ourselves have mostly evergreens, so it's not much of an issue. But when I was a kid I raked the leaves into a great big pile and then jumped around in them. I've watched people using leaf-blowers and they don't appear to be doing stuff any faster than I did, or that I could do now if the occasion arose. Is it really worth the cost of the machine, the gas, the noise, the particulates, to make a huge, extended, symphonic fart and feel that you're part of the leisure class? Or is it that the Mexican labor force prefers to deafen itself?

I don't have a leaf-blower next door to me -- I've got an endlessly yapping little dog that I wish someone would take a leaf-blower to. So I don't have a chicken wing in this soup, and won't argue for or against regulation. I suppose the leaf-blower people might claim a 2nd Amendment privilege -- when the Islamists come swarming ashore at Bodega, we'll whoosh'em out to sea and preserve our fabled Way of Life.

I'm just posting this as part of my day off - which has been mostly work - so it shouldn't be taken terribly seriously.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Ditto on the yapping dog!!

I mean my neighbors', not the Wacoons. (I keed, I keeed!)

You don't live in Forestville, do you Conrad?

Cheingrand wrote:
Definition of COMMON SENSE: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). It's hard to believe that anyone would think that using common sense is a weak position.

You are correct to find it hard to believe - because it's not an accurate or charitable representation of my meaning.

Do you assert that the majority of people can be relied on to apply sound and prudent judgment - especially in the case of conflict of interests?

"We need regulation because one size does not fit all..." Regulations are an attempt to make one size fit all. We need to resist efforts to over-regulate our lives with unnecessary rules and regulations.

If you had said "poorly-written Regulations are an attempt to make one size fit all" I might think we could have a reasonable debate.

"...because it works for you does not mean it works for the sane majority." Does this mean that common sense only works for the insane minority?

No. It means that I have seen that, as many people often quip, Common Sense is something of an oxymoron. Especially when dealing with each others' behavior and the conflict that often arises when one's action cause a problem for another. (Please do not strike up another strawman about people who supposedly oversensitive'.)

"...people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy..." I don't share this view of humanity, and it clearly shows the weakness of your arguments.

It was my mistake, and I should and do know better, to have failed to qualify my statement. Had you simply pointed out how overarching it was, instead of attacking what I said based on some supposedly implied absolutism, we might have had a productive exchange.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

My issue with Lordbear’s post is that his blanket statement has no qualifiers. As written, his statement says that “…people are lazy, short-sighted, self-centered, greedy and otherwise willing to cause problems for others for the sake of their own comfort or advancement.” I don’t agree that these are the default characteristics of all people. I am far more hopeful.

---

So, if I had been more careful and inserted appropriate qualifier(s), how might you have responded?

Want to hear something really, really ironic?

Many years ago, back when modems were how we connected and discussions like this were had on BBSes and USENET, I tried to propagate an acronym as a universal qualifier. I saw many otherwise potentially useful discussions devolve into acrimony over the subjective differences between some, many, most, few, etc., that I suggested the adoption of SQO. "Some Quantity Of". The idea being that if you can't pin someone down on the qualifier, you can't really argue over such. It never caught on. :)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I guess I didn't make my point clear. My added qualifiers were meant to explicate 1. The reasonable meaning that Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean), and 2. The needlessly negative assumption you clearly made about his meaning. Do you see, Cheingrand, that Lordbear's wording did not imply, as you claimed, that those bad traits were the "default characteristics of all people"? Talk about changing someone's statement with your own words! Your arbitrarily choosing the negative assumption that he meant something unreasonable is the "straw figure" fallacy in action, and violates the basic critical thinking principle known as "intellectual fairness".

---

Dixon, my philosophy professor would like to give you a gold star. :wink:

I made an error by failing to be clear and properly qualifying my remarks. It was sloppy - the price of haste. But, Cheingrand provided a fine example of what it looks like when one is not neutral or charitable in interpreting anothers' words, and instead polarizes the exchange with an extreme interpretation.

Cheers,
Don Bear

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

My assumption was based on the statement as stated. If I read his clear statement and try to assess what "...Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean)...", I am putting my own opinions over the opinion of the writer. Lordbear said what he said. It's pretty simple. If he meant something other than what he said, I would be a mind-reader (and I know you don't believe in mind-readers, Dixon) to attempt to differently decipher his words.

---

Yes, I said what I said. I did not mean, imply or write what you responded to.

This is about a few things, among them "interpretation." As Dixon has attempted to explain, in the absence of ANY qualifier, you have a few options. Assume one extreme. Assume another extreme. Assume a middle ground. ASK for clarification. Furthermore, it's kind of exhausting, but you can even supply multiple alternative responses;

"If you meant to imply that EVERYONE is this way, then I say A, B, and C. But if your position is that MOST people are that way, then I say X, Y and Z. Lastly, if you were talking of a rare FEW, then I agree"

Intellectual fairness means, in part, that when one cannot be reasonably certain that the meaning is clear (for which the absence of a suitable qualifier is a prime example), then one does well does to clarify. I say that with the full awareness and admission that I am, at best, inconsistent at applying this practice myself. I find it challenging because the practice of this approach can feel much less gratifying than launching into a juicy counterattack. Perhaps (qualifier!) you enjoy such things yourself.

>>>Ditto on the yapping dog!! I mean my neighbors', not the Wacoons. (I keed, I keeed!)
>>>You don't live in Forestville, do you Conrad?

Nope - Sebastopol. But it's probably the same damn dog, via the Web.

-CB

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Cheingrand:

If I read his clear statement and try to assess what "...Lordbear could have meant (and I think did mean)...", I am putting my own opinions over the opinion of the writer.

---

I am curious just how you would set about attempting to understand what someone says or writes without trying to assess what (s)he meant? Is that not the essence of understanding? Beyond very simple declarative statements, everything we say is capable of multiple interpretations, and understanding is the act of choosing between them. Sometimes in an effort to be concise people leave themselves open to interpretations that make their statements seem less than intelligent. In this case I would agree with Dixon that the statement could reasonably be interpreted either way. You chose the interpretation that made the statement seem ludicrously extreme, and in making that assumption rather than the more charitable one you also implied an assumption about the intelligence of the writer. Dixon, on the other hand, made the assumption that the writer did have some grasp of fairly obvious reality and that the omission of the qualifying words was inadvertent. Could we not avoid some of these annoying sidetracks by giving each other a little more credit for intelligence? Could you not, for instance, have asked for further clarification of a statement you found extreme by asking if this was really what he meant rather than jumping all over him for it?

Patrick Brinton

I would like to vote, but don't see what I'd vote for listed above. I think people need to be educated about how to use their leaf blower, when and how often.

I live next to an adult recovery center where numerous times residents have become obsessive about leaf blowing, I assume to replace their obsession with alcohol. Right now there's a guy living there who leaf blows EVERY MORNING regardless of if there are only 8 leaves. I smell its gas in my kitchen as I cook. I smell it at my computer where I desperately need to do my homework. Last weekend I had to go out at 7:30am and tell the guy that on Sundays he legally needed to wait until after 9. He looked at me, said ok, and turned around and continued leaf blowing.

This spurned me to an online frenzy of leaf blowing etiquette, and I found that in one other city—it might have been Santa Cruz—you had to have a permit to operate one, and in the permit training you learned proper etiquette. I think if people can't develop consideration on their own than it should be regulated. But these things need enforcement as well, unfortunately. Otherwise it's a mute point altogether.

I have a leaf blower myself, and I do use it. But it's electric and I'm conscious of how it affects others and I only use it once a month if that.

I disagree with people who want less noise. Leaf blowers are our best shot at sticking it to the greatest number of people. They just ignore you when you wave your middle finger at them like the lunatic you are, so gun that engine, friend! Get the respect you deserve. Disturbing others is not only your right. It is your Constitutional obligation.

I hope the Islamists don't too much noise when they're coming ashore. It's so annoying.. .I guess we all have our own brand of yappers.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

I don't have a leaf-blower next door to me -- I've got an endlessly yapping little dog that I wish someone would take a leaf-blower to. So I don't have a chicken wing in this soup, and won't argue for or against regulation. I suppose the leaf-blower people might claim a 2nd Amendment privilege -- when the Islamists come swarming ashore at Bodega, we'll whoosh'em out to sea and preserve our fabled Way of Life.

---