EPA Scientific Advisory Board Shakeup

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 10:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Insurance companies.

I figured the car manufactures would want the equipment required in their cars and a mandate to have them in all cars so people would need to buy new cars. The insurance angle does make sense though.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 09:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt I have been brainwashed by suggesting such a panel should not be devoid of corporate representation. I have studied business practices and cooperate stewardship at a post-graduate level; as well as, written (non-published) papers on the matter(s).

I do not say this to brag or suggest I know more than anyone else here. Merely to shut down your baseless accusation that I feel diversity and opposing views are good for any panel, is not formed by listening to the "right wing echo chamber".  

Do you think such panels should be devoid of corporate representation or are you just arguing to argue?

As to examples go to your search bar and type in "examples of corporate stewardship".   

How does mentioning what you have studied shut down a baseless accusation?

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 11:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How does mentioning what you have studied shut down a baseless accusation?

Oh, it does not. I should used refute; as nothing will shutdown baseless allegations in this forum.

Thanks for pointing out the incorrect wording and allowing me to correct. I will do so immediately.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 11:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, it does not. I should used refute; as nothing will shutdown baseless allegations in this forum.

Thanks for pointing out the incorrect wording and allowing me to correct. I will do so immediately.

Ah, so your subject matter expertise allows you to refute a baseless allegation, but you're not suggesting you know more than others?

I guess your subject matter expertise would allow you to recognize a baseless allegation by someone without the same level of knowledge as yourself.

Not that I would suggest that.

[Dill]

Hey guys, there are some interesting issues at stake here.  I don't know crap about cell phones, so I am learning as everyone chips in information from a different angle--and this still folds into the question of research and stakeholder representation in government agencies, right?

Let's all try to stay on track. Challenges are good. What goals typically guide applied research, or don't? Make your case. Explain why the other guy's case is weaker. His language is unclear or his support his inadequate? Fine, point that out. You have a rebuttal, so rebut. 

But let's ease back on the personal challenges a bit.  One thing I like about this forum is that no one really knows anyone else's background.  You cannot win or lose points for yourself by claiming you have a degree or experience or whatever, and you cannot delete someone else's points by simply claiming he or she does not have a degree or experience or whatever. You are as good as what you can write--or can't write--here and now. That's all.

Every poster so far contributing to this thread makes solid contributions to the forum. Each has valid complaints about what drags down discussion. (Flippancy/smack tends to do that. Sometimes it is harmless fun. But when personally directed it tends to call forth response in kind.)  In fact, there is considerable agreement about that, if not among all members of the P'n R forum, at least among those currently posting to this thread. I guess smack can be really funny in the smack forum (where we Steeler fans have the natural advantage lol); but when we are talking politics and religion, I am hard put to think of a past thread in which it did anything but generate defensive digressions and occasionally lock down a promising thread.

If we are/feel slighted, we always have a choice to ignore a slight and continue on with the substance.  I generally find this easy to do, since personal slights rarely make worthwhile points. They are mostly like shooting blanks, a fail. The trick is to remember that others--at least those whose respect you'd want--recognize them as fail as well.  So understand that you don't REALLY have to defend yourself, especially if you are making substantial points.  I tend to mentally cross out slights out when reading someone's post, whether aimed at me or someone else. (Sometimes when I do that, nothing is left. No substance whatsoever.)    

I do make assumptions about what other people do know or don't, especially when they are talking about subject areas I know something about. But unless they are positive, unless they could accomplish something beyond an insult, I generally keep such evaluations to myself. If someone clearly doesn't know a basic premise of experimental method, I may explain that premise and how his argument violates that premise. But I don't call him an idiot.  And if I have misunderstood or mis-explained that premise, I'll listen to correction.

Finally, misunderstandings are bound to happen, given the way people often respond to posts in a rush. But we are not bound to intensify them. They do not mean people are stupid or deserving of abuse. If we think to identify misunderstandings as such and correct them first, whether on the part of poster or reader, some level of flame may be reduced.  I can think of several occasions when I have stood correction and apologized to posters for misreading or responding to some point they did not actually make--once they explained my mistake to me. The conversion just continued then.

(Some one might raise an objection here--"Dill, I see that you occasionally post parodies of Republicans/Trump/Trumpsters. Are those not personal insults? They are not what your are always calling "substantial arguments, are they? Are you not violating your own standards?"  To which I would answer--not necessarily. The point of a parody is to use your opponents' own language to foreground some aspect of his/her position in a way which renders it ineffective.  It's not argument, but not personal attack either, if the intent is to neutralize some premise or tendency in the opposing camp, not to drag down the person parodied.)

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 01:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Ah, so your subject matter expertise allows you to refute a baseless allegation, but you're not suggesting you know more than others?

I guess your subject matter expertise would allow you to recognize a baseless allegation by someone without the same level of knowledge as yourself.

Not that I would suggest that.

I was refuting his baseless assertion that I got my point of view from the "Right Wing Echo Chamber".

Keep trying.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 03:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was refuting his baseless assertion that I got my point of view from the "Right Wing Echo Chamber".

Keep trying.

I believe your belief that his assertion is baseless, to in fact be baseless.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Would Pfizer scientists make the FDA better? Because who better to act as a watchdog organization than the companies the FDA oversees?

Who better to be a security consultant for the farmer's henhouse than the fox?

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 03:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who better to be a security consultant for the farmer's henhouse than the fox?

It is unfortunate that you cannot see the wisdom in this.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is unfortunate that you cannot see the wisdom in this.

It's unfortunate you don't see the fox needs to eat, too.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/epa-may-allow-massive-mine-near-pristine-alaskan-135427086--finance.html

Who better to look out for the fishing industry than the mining industry.

[Dill]

(05-13-2017, 08:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/epa-may-allow-massive-mine-near-pristine-alaskan-135427086--finance.html

Who better to look out for the fishing industry than the mining industry.

The mining industry has seen promising signs from the administration, including a willingness to take a different look at projects and to review regulations seen as overly burdensome, said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association.

"I think the public is in no danger of seeing genuine environmental protection diminished," he said. "We're simply asking for a more efficient process."

Environmental groups see the Pebble agreement as potentially giving a go-ahead to industry to challenge EPA actions or to seek permits about which they previously might have been uncertain.

"It obviously sends a psychological message to big mining companies that if they were nervous about getting permits in the past ... that this is their golden opportunity to get their mine through the process," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.

Critics of the Pebble settlement called it a backdoor deal and a slap in the face to residents of the region who petitioned the EPA in hopes of securing environmental protections.

Miners can expect a fair shake now, since locals can be more easily shut out of the permit process. Trump is to the corporate minority today what Johnson was to African Americans in the 60s.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2017, 09:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You really think the cell phone company that employs a method that restricts the user from texting in  moving vehicle will increase sales?

Yes, absolutely.  Parents will rush to buy this brand.  Totally profit driven.  

Plus this does not really reduce the volumn of texts.  if people have the same amount of info to text they will still text the same amount.  they just won't do it while the car is moving.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2017, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is unfortunate that you cannot see the wisdom in this.

Since opposing viewpoints are so important I am sure that every corporation has specially appointed environmentalist with equal votes on their Board of Directors, right?

Letting corporations have inside influence in the EPA is like letting inmates have inside influence in prison security.

[Dill]

(05-13-2017, 09:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since opposing viewpoints are so important I am sure that every corporation has specially appointed environmentalist with equal votes on their Board of Directors, right?

Letting corporations have inside influence in the EPA is like letting inmates have inside influence in prison security.

It shouldn't be that way. But unfortunately it is. The EPA was formed precisely because of the volume of corporate misdeeds and environmental irresponsibility.  Exxon spent MILLIONS and lead an entire industry in generating global warming denial and ensconcing that denial in right wing political platforms. Now they have seen the light, but the denial industry continues apace. It has captured the presidency now.

Corporations should certainly have a hearing. E.g., it is proper to know how regulations affect their viability. It is possible to go to far.
But giving them a say in "shaping" EPA policy--that is questionable. Scary.

[*bfine32*]

(05-13-2017, 09:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, absolutely.  Parents will rush to buy this brand.  Totally profit driven.  

Plus this does not really reduce the volumn of texts.  if people have the same amount of info to text they will still text the same amount.  they just won't do it while the car is moving.

We'll just say we have a different view of  feature that will increase sales. I and the econ professor that I know do not think folks will rush to purchase the phone that restricts their options.

IF EVERY parent that had a child between the age of having a sole operator license and able to buy their own stuff bought this phone it would not tilt the total market a bit. Of course every parent will not do this as they many like to make their children happy.

How bout you. Would you rush to buy a phone that restricted your child's ability to text in  moving vehicle?

[fredtoast]

(05-14-2017, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We'll just say we have a different view of  feature that will increase sales. I and the econ professor that I know do not think folks will rush to purchase the phone that restricts their options.

IF EVERY parent that had a child between the age of having a sole operator license and able to buy their own stuff bought this phone it would not tilt the total market a bit. Of course every parent will not do this as they many like to make their children happy.

How bout you. Would you rush to buy a phone that restricted your child's ability to text in  moving vehicle?

I don't think there is a specific phone that does this.  Instead the phone companies just sell the app to do it.

What phone comapany did your friend work for?  Do they have a phone that stops all people from texting while driving?  If not then you don't really have an example.  All of my examples of horrible things corporations do because of profit motives ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

[*bfine32*]

(05-14-2017, 11:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think there is a specific phone that does this.  Instead the phone companies just sell the app to do it.

What phone comapany did your friend work for?  Do they have a phone that stops all people from texting while driving?  If not then you don't really have an example.  All of my examples of horrible things corporations do because of profit motives ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Surprisingly, you didn't answer the question posed.

You asserted the phone company would strive to produce such a phone because parents would "rush out" to purchase the phone that prevented their children from texting in a moving vehicle.

Once you were shown how stupid this line of thinking was, you want to introduce a new slant to the discussion.

nswer the question posed and we'll go from there or not.