Leaf Blower Issue A Thorny Public Policy Debate

["Mad" Miles]

Been following this "discussion" but I've been preoccupied elsewhere. How's this for a compromise?

No regulations for leaf blowers, chain saws, chipper/shredders, loud engines of any kind (motorcycles, cars, dirt bikes, dirt track racing cars [my neighbor across the gully and down the hill builds and tests the latter, of an evening], etc.)

As long as I have the right to shoot, with an accurate firearm, any of the former from the hands of any operator who is wielding one at a time I find irritating, and or deleterious to my health, as long as I only disable the engine, two stroke or otherwise. And I otherwise harm NO ONE.

How's that for defending FREEDOM!!! And opposing oppressive government?

Seems fair to me. You insert your noise into my space. I ask you to quit it. You do not comply. I end the penetrating abusive threat to my well-being and otherwise cause no harm. What's wrong with that?

I promise, I've been certified Marksman First Class by the NRA, some forty-two years ago, so I can hit what I aim at. We good?

[wildfire]

some government regulation is good, like for robbery, murder, rape, fraud to name a few, however we have gone way too far where our privacy has been invaded by government.We are now criminals where we were not 20 years ago, no i am not an absolutist , just things have gone too far in one direction and this leaf blower thing is just another example, yes i use them for short periods of time.

[jbox]

Jbox, I do not think there is anything silly about this. I disagree with your premise that this is not a progressive, or environnmental issue. I was at a community meal at Petaluma co-housing last night....

We can just agree to disagree on this issue, Jonathan. I do not doubt your good intentions here, by the way. We just have a fundamental difference of opinion about how far the role of government should extend into the affairs of its citizens. You see the individual as powerless and the government should vigorously protect the individual from the excesses of other individuals. I see the individual as the engine of creative expression, artistically and economically, and the role of government should be to encourage that creativity and free expression while protecting the larger society from the natural excesses that result from individual expression. The danger, for me, comes when the government through excessive legislation, regulation, taxes, red tape and oversight stifles the inalienable right of free individual expression.

By the way, you have ignored my question to you about whether the City has the resources to devote to the development, implementation, and enforcement of a leaf blower ordinance. What programs are you willing to cut to make your idea bear fruit? Or should we just have a tax increase? Your thoughts? This is important and can't be ignored.

Oh, one more point. I will cop to liberal libertarian leanings though I've never voted for a libertarian. Not all libertarians are drooling right wingers. In most areas of the country people would think of me as a freaking communist or at least a socialist.

[Claire]

A millennium hence, archaeologists will unearth your place and decide it was a temple, aligned just so that would happen on the equinox. New Age hucksters, perhaps the descendants of current local ones, will lead pilgrimages to the ruins of your house, making big bucks by pretending to channel you.

That's great, Dixon. lol.
Do you think there's any way to speed things up some? I wouldn't mind making big bucks now, pretending to channel myself.

(I know this was off-topic, but it was a cool thing, especially the timing of it)

[Dixon]

That's great, Dixon. lol.
Do you think there's any way to speed things up some? I wouldn't mind making big bucks now, pretending to channel myself.

I'm afraid channeling yourself is not cosmic enough to attract any "green energy", Claire. But the good news is that you can claim to channel absolutely anybody or anything besides yourself, such as a 30,000 year-old entity from Lemuria, or for that matter, claim any kind of "healing" or divinatory power, and the New Age bliss-ninnies of West Sonoma County will line up at your door with their money in their hands. There is no claim so bizarre or so thoroughly unsupported by any logic that people around here won't pay good money for it. Don't forget to use words like "sacred" and "quantum", and make sure to get a booth at the Harmony Festival. And Barry will happily let you fish for suckers here on WaccoBB no matter how bogus your "service" is--as long as it's not sexual in nature, which for some reason is verboten here on "progressive" WaccoBB.

[BizWrangler]

It is my personal preference to live where my life is not micro-managed. That is one reason I moved to West County in the first place. I recall in the 60s coming to Morningstar, and the mind set of my age group then was not to have our lives managed by government, but to have the freedom of choice. How ironic how times have changed in this area.

Anyway, fast forward now, and society has already made provisions for people who wish to have more control over their environment. These are called communities with HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS that have CC & Rs restricting behavior for all such things. Gated communities, condo/townhouse communities, etc. are there to accommodate those people who wish to live in an environment where such behaviors are regulated.

One does not live next to an airport if the sound of planes overhead is a problem for them anymore than they live next to tennis courts with people playing at 8 am on Sat. mornings when the person living there wants to sleep in. One must understand that to live in a place that includes lawns, trees, shrubs, gardens, etc. is going to involve the need for these to be maintained and that includes the use of power tools.

I am disabled, and it is impossible for me to rake or push a broom for any more than just a few minutes at a time. When I lived where I had land to maintain, I used an electric blower and lawn mower. I had no one to do the work for me. I could manage a blower and electric mower, but certainly not any gas powered tool. I think the electric machines are much quieter, too.

It seems those in opposition to leaf blowers fail to have considered that not everyone has the manual ability to maintain their property without using power tools. Do those in opposition plan to maintain the properties of those who need to use power tools? Great! Bring your lunch! I will accept you volunteering to do my yard work for me. Not everyone is so able bodied as those who are so eager to restrict my choice of tools I must use.

For a self-proclaimed so called 'progressive' community, surely you can come up with a better solution than taking away one more freedom of choice from the rest of us. Perhaps those offended by the use of these tools should actually relocate to where these restrictions are part and parcel of where they live, and that is a community with a HOA that regulates these things. To impose your standards on everyone else, including the disabled and those who need to use these tools in a 'free society' is not my idea of a progressive community at all. Those that have issues with the use of leaf blowers and such - especially in a location that is famous for our vegetation, are living in the wrong location. An apartment or city dwelling condo/townhouse community would be appropriate for you. It's just plain wrong to live in this environment and then complain, just like the person living next to the tennis courts. (True story, too... I managed a private tennis club with condos next to the courts, and sure enough, someone moved in then complained about the sound of people playing on the courts, especially weekend mornings - our busiest time of the week!)

I would support encouraging people to switch to electric tools whenever possible, and allow their use not only weekdays when most people are gone to work and not home anyway, and Saturdays when they are home and are doing their yard work.
Santa Rosa has a free tool lending library, so perhaps Sebastopol can come up with an electric tool lending program too, and some incentives for their use? The wind whips up dust and whatever is in it already, so banning blowers isn't going to prevent that stuff from being in the air anyway. If one is that sensitive to dust, move to the city instead of living in this country environment.

I am not one who enjoys engaging in an argument. I am sure those who disagree with me can pounce on my words and find fault, however I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm not going to spend time defending my position. I specifically moved to the country to avoid living in a homeowners association kind of environment. Those who want those restrictions should move to where they are part of the culture of the community and they are among like minded people who want those rules and regulations.

[Barry]

I'm afraid channeling yourself is not cosmic enough to attract any "green energy", Claire. But the good news is that you can claim to channel absolutely anybody or anything besides yourself, such as a 30,000 year-old entity from Lemuria, or for that matter, claim any kind of "healing" or divinatory power, and the New Age bliss-ninnies of West Sonoma County will line up at your door with their money in their hands. There is no claim so bizarre or so thoroughly unsupported by any logic that people around here won't pay good money for it. Don't forget to use words like "sacred" and "quantum", and make sure to get a booth at the Harmony Festival. And Barry will happily let you fish for suckers here on WaccoBB no matter how bogus your "service" is--as long as it's not sexual in nature, which for some reason is verboten here on "progressive" WaccoBB.

This post lead to a discussion about sexual content on WaccoBB.net which has been split of into it's own thread, Sex and WaccoBB. Please come join that discussion and let us know your thoughts!

[Claire]

One does not live next to an airport if the sound of planes overhead is a problem for them

Hey bizwrangler, I appreciate that you want to put your opinion out there without getting jumped on; it certainly is a risk.

Since I brought out the airplane issue, I'd just like to say that I did not live near an airport. I was out in the country away from towns, and just found out after moving there that there was consistent air traffic overhead, some of it unbelievably loud. If some planes can be quiet, surely others can be made quieter.
There must be quieter gas-powered leaf blowers (?) and if not, perhaps municipal rulings would entice manufacturers to deal with the noise issue.

[BizWrangler]

Hey bizwrangler, I appreciate that you want to put your opinion out there without getting jumped on; it certainly is a risk.

Since I brought out the airplane issue, I'd just like to say that I did not live near an airport. I was out in the country away from towns, and just found out after moving there that there was consistent air traffic overhead, some of it unbelievably loud. If some planes can be quiet, surely others can be made quieter.
There must be quieter gas-powered leaf blowers (?) and if not, perhaps municipal rulings would entice manufacturers to deal with the noise issue.

My apologies Claire. When I used the airport analogy, it was not in reference to your earlier comments.
Biz Wrangler

[jbox]

It is my personal preference to live where my life is not micro-managed. That is one reason I moved to West County in the first place. I recall in the 60s coming to Morningstar, and the mind set of my age group then was not to have our lives managed by government, but to have the freedom of choice. How ironic how times have changed in this area.

Anyway, fast forward now, and society has already made provisions for people who wish to have more control over their environment. These are called communities with HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS that have CC & Rs restricting behavior for all such things. Gated communities, condo/townhouse communities, etc. are there to accommodate those people who wish to live in an environment where such behaviors are regulated.

One does not live next to an airport if the sound of planes overhead is a problem for them anymore than they live next to tennis courts with people playing at 8 am on Sat. mornings when the person living there wants to sleep in. One must understand that to live in a place that includes lawns, trees, shrubs, gardens, etc. is going to involve the need for these to be maintained and that includes the use of power tools.

I am disabled, and it is impossible for me to rake or push a broom for any more than just a few minutes at a time. When I lived where I had land to maintain, I used an electric blower and lawn mower. I had no one to do the work for me. I could manage a blower and electric mower, but certainly not any gas powered tool. I think the electric machines are much quieter, too.

It seems those in opposition to leaf blowers fail to have considered that not everyone has the manual ability to maintain their property without using power tools. Do those in opposition plan to maintain the properties of those who need to use power tools? Great! Bring your lunch! I will accept you volunteering to do my yard work for me. Not everyone is so able bodied as those who are so eager to restrict my choice of tools I must use.

For a self-proclaimed so called 'progressive' community, surely you can come up with a better solution than taking away one more freedom of choice from the rest of us. Perhaps those offended by the use of these tools should actually relocate to where these restrictions are part and parcel of where they live, and that is a community with a HOA that regulates these things. To impose your standards on everyone else, including the disabled and those who need to use these tools in a 'free society' is not my idea of a progressive community at all. Those that have issues with the use of leaf blowers and such - especially in a location that is famous for our vegetation, are living in the wrong location. An apartment or city dwelling condo/townhouse community would be appropriate for you. It's just plain wrong to live in this environment and then complain, just like the person living next to the tennis courts. (True story, too... I managed a private tennis club with condos next to the courts, and sure enough, someone moved in then complained about the sound of people playing on the courts, especially weekend mornings - our busiest time of the week!)

I would support encouraging people to switch to electric tools whenever possible, and allow their use not only weekdays when most people are gone to work and not home anyway, and Saturdays when they are home and are doing their yard work.
Santa Rosa has a free tool lending library, so perhaps Sebastopol can come up with an electric tool lending program too, and some incentives for their use? The wind whips up dust and whatever is in it already, so banning blowers isn't going to prevent that stuff from being in the air anyway. If one is that sensitive to dust, move to the city instead of living in this country environment.

I am not one who enjoys engaging in an argument. I am sure those who disagree with me can pounce on my words and find fault, however I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm not going to spend time defending my position. I specifically moved to the country to avoid living in a homeowners association kind of environment. Those who want those restrictions should move to where they are part of the culture of the community and they are among like minded people who want those rules and regulations.

This post is so well put. A whole lot of us old hippies and others who don't fit the mold came up to the country to shed the various and assorted bonds that tied us up and restricted our freedom. What's progressive about the leaf blower ban when you look at the big picture? This thing smacks of political correctness, which smacks of smily faced groupthink and censorship. (what?, aren't you in favor of the environment?)

And as long as I'm on the subject, I have still not heard Peacetown Jonathan's plan on how to pay for the design, implementation, and enforcement of his leaf blower ordinance. If someone hasn't thought an issue all the way through, then that someone is just another theoretician, not a practitioner, and the issue and that someone loses credibility.

[bicycular12]

"I don't care where it goes, as long as it's away" is irresponsible nimbyism. Taking yard debris, dust, litter, etc. from property "A" and causing it, by whatever means, to be deposited on adjacent properties or in the public street is littering. This is subject to civil & criminal penalties. "Mow,blow,go" was not s.o.p. until the absurd growth of unskilled, unlicensed wannabe's lowballing just to make wages skewed the market. If not for the glut of pretenders, green professionals would discontinue this practice. Small claims court. Repeated acts go to malice & punitive damages. This act has never been legit. Check out Santa Monica's ban.

[lordbear]

I resist the idea that we need ordinances and regulations to insure that common sense is allowed and followed. It's time to stand up and disregard the attempts to regulate our behavior on using electric leaf blowers. My porch looks great!

The weakness in your position is shown by the use of "common sense". What seems obvious or reasonable to you is not universal. To assume it is shows that you are not considering other valid points of view and therefore undermines your argument.

We need regulation because one size does not fit all (because it works for you does not mean it works for the sane majority) and because 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.

[Cheingrand]

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.

"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.

"...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?

"...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.

The weakness in your position is shown by the use of "common sense". What seems obvious or reasonable to you is not universal. To assume it is shows that you are not considering other valid points of view and therefore undermines your argument.

We need regulation because one size does not fit all (because it works for you does not mean it works for the sane majority) and because 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.

[Dixon]

"...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.

Gosh, Cheingrand, it must be great to live on a planet where nobody is lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy, and therefore no regulations are needed! I really envy you. Here on planet Earth, nearly everyone, myself included, has one or more of these shortcomings. Because of this, we enforce things called laws and regulations, because there are always some folks around who can't be trusted to self-regulate enough to refrain from stepping on their neighbors' toes. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this or that particular regulation is a good one, but no one who lives in the real world can take the position that regulation is never necessary because people aren't lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy.

[Cheingrand]

Golly, Dixon, your interpretation of my post “…that regulation is never necessary…” is in error. My position as stated is that we need to “…resist efforts to over-regulate our lives with unnecessary rules and regulations.” I agree with your statement that reasonable people can disagree with particular regulations, and it is the useless, unnecessary regulations (like leaf blower bans) that we should resist. My post does not advocate a world with no rules and regulations. Clearly, our society requires laws, and I spent 32 years in a career enforcing laws.

My post also does not imply that I live in a world where nobody is lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy. 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.

Gosh, Cheingrand, it must be great to live on a planet where nobody is lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy, and therefore no regulations are needed! I really envy you. Here on planet Earth, nearly everyone, myself included, has one or more of these shortcomings. Because of this, we enforce things called laws and regulations, because there are always some folks around who can't be trusted to self-regulate enough to refrain from stepping on their neighbors' toes. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this or that particular regulation is a good one, but no one who lives in the real world can take the position that regulation is never necessary because people aren't lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy.

[jbox]

Gosh, Cheingrand, it must be great to live on a planet where nobody is lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy, and therefore no regulations are needed! I really envy you. Here on planet Earth, nearly everyone, myself included, has one or more of these shortcomings. Because of this, we enforce things called laws and regulations, because there are always some folks around who can't be trusted to self-regulate enough to refrain from stepping on their neighbors' toes. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this or that particular regulation is a good one, but no one who lives in the real world can take the position that regulation is never necessary because people aren't lazy, short-sighted, self-centered or greedy.

Gee, Dixon, haven't you considered the notion that devising and enforcing a regulation, in this case leaf blowers but it can extend to almost anything in the public domain, is reacting to a few people who may abuse a privilege, or who are hyper sensitive. When you regulate something you are pandering to a very small percentage and dumbing down the overwhelming majority to the level of the gratuitous offender or the hyper-sensitive whiner. Most folks don't have a big, big problem with leaf blowers, and I don't want my life or individual expression to be regulated by the government any more than necessary. Of course some regulation is necessary but common courtesy and respect for neighbors has to factor into any equation without the kneejerk reaction to write some new law.

[nicofrog]

I've said this before;

Form a neighborhood coalition(not AGAINST anything,let's just get together around a b b q and some coolers) talk neighborhood co-op ( what if there's a flood, power-outage,etc.)..share laundry...childcare,emergency supplies,skills.elder care,rides,movies , music.

Decide on a "Small Engines Day" of the week...say saturday(or every other Sat.) if lot's of people work 9 to 5...
or a week day afternoon if lots of folks are retired,or stay at home'ers ..

On that day(and hopefully ONLY that day) anyone and everyone can MOW, WEEDWHAC, LEAFBLOW, Or work on the tuning on their HARLY) just plain ol make a ruckus day...*(Play some thrash,or heavy metal)..crank it up!

then the rest of the week,take naps,listen to birds, or resent the highway,if you need to resent something...

No legislation no right and wrong...if anyone "Opts out" in the neighborhood ,just ignore them..if they make a lot of noise on the "off days..get a sub woofer and do drive by woofings on the "right" day... Perhaps little by little,they will spontaneously "fit in"..

check out "Transition Sebastopol" (a division of transitiontowns usa) www.transitionsebastopol.org a WORLD-wide movement to inspire cooperation and mutual respect for our shared challenge to MAKE SENSE of this "Modern" life and help each other out..

Life is short ,you will be remembered for what you Loved..not what you hated..

I love leaf blowers,when they are turned OFF

Rake's progress...Nico

[Dixon]

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.

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.

[Dixon]

Gee, Dixon, haven't you considered the notion that devising and enforcing a regulation, in this case leaf blowers but it can extend to almost anything in the public domain, is reacting to a few people who may abuse a privilege...

Nearly every law is reacting to a few people. A few rapists, thieves or murderers aren't a majority, but they do necessitate regulation. Less serious things such as the pollution (including noise pollution) created by things like leaf blowers may arguably require such regulation too. The fact that regulation is a response to just a few people is irrelevant to the question of whether a particular regulation is appropriate.

...or who are hyper sensitive.

I would agree that some folks are hypersensitive and demand regulation of harmless activities based on their own intolerance. Censorship, and "lifestyle laws" against things like nudity and drugs come to mind as examples. But I observe that "hypersensitive" is often a term people who don't want to restrain their behavior apply to those who have reasonable complaints about that behavior.

When you regulate something you are pandering to a very small percentage and dumbing down the overwhelming majority to the level of the gratuitous offender or the hyper-sensitive whiner. Most folks don't have a big, big problem with leaf blowers...

In some cultures, most folks don't have a big, big problem with slavery, or treating women like shit, or exterminating Jews, or... Your implication that we should decide what to allow based on what most people find acceptable allows for gross oppression of the minorities by the majority. I espouse a more reasonable criterion for deciding what behaviors to allow or forbid: harm. Harmless behaviors should not be regulated, regardless of whether they're acceptable to the intolerant folks around us. Harmful behaviors should be forbidden, even if only a minority (such as slavery abolitionists, or early suffragettes) object to the harm. The issue re: leaf blowers shouldn't be your convincing yourself that most people don't mind; it should be whether the benefit is enough to justify the harm (pollution, noise, blowing litter onto someone else's property).

...and I don't want my life or individual expression to be regulated by the government any more than necessary.

Duh! Do you imagine that anyone in the world does? The dispute is not between you and people who supposedly want unnecessary regulation; it's about what regulation is necessary and what isn't. Spouting philosophical slogans about not wanting unnecessary regulation misses the point and gets us nowhere. And, as often as not, it's a tack taken by people who are making excuses for doing harmful things that they lack the consideration to stop doing.

Of course some regulation is necessary but common courtesy and respect for neighbors has to factor into any equation without the kneejerk reaction to write some new law.

But jbox, if "common courtesy and respect for neighbors" were universal, we wouldn't need laws at all! It's those who lack those fine qualities who necessitate regulation. Do you imagine that factoring in common courtesy and respect for neighbors means we can get by without a regulation because everyone will play nice without it? What planet have you been living on?

[battindown]

Let's take a look at the real issues here. Gas powered leaf blowers create significant noise and toxic green house gas emissions. That doesn't mean that they should be forbidden. Rather the decibel level and emission levels should be regulated. When the California Energy Commission stated strict regulations on power usage for high-deff TVs, new energy saving models appeared before the state deadline.

I suggest the city counsel create regulations on maximum decibels of sound and emissions for all landscaping equipment. (Like the laws that are not enforced regarding motorcycles.) That way manufacturers will get the message to make quiet and low emission equipment. It has to start somewhere.

[Cheingrand]

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.

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.

[Dixon]

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

Thanks for the kind words, Cheingrand.

...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".

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.

[Cheingrand]

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.

[Dixon]

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.

[theindependenteye]

>>>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

["Mad" Miles]

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?

[lordbear]

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.

[lordbear]

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. :)

[lordbear]

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.

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

[lordbear]

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.