Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply - Page 2

starting strength gym
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 79

Thread: Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rocksprings, TX
    Posts
    259

    Default

    • texas starting strength seminar september 2020
    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    We do know that COVID-19 is now the No.1 cause of death in the U.S., something it only took the virus four months to achieve.
    If a 42 yr old fire fighter has a heart attack after quarantine (BUT NEVER POSITIVELY TESTED) for the virus, and it counts towards the death count, then it will be real easy for it to be the #1 COD. For example. I hope I don't get hit by a car....and die. Obviously, it would be COVID related.

    CDC investigating death of Maine firefighter | WGME


    sb

  2. #12
    Ray Gillenwater's Avatar
    Ray Gillenwater is offline Administrator, Starting Strength Gyms
    Starting Strength Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    Rather than defeating or controlling the virus, we will have to learn to live with it.
    Sounds like we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    The problem with the government is not that they have closed businesses, but that they have offered no plan for safely reopening them.
    It is a problem that they closed businesses, because they've caused significant, irreparable harm to millions of people, with no exit plan. When you go into the ER, it's reasonable to expect that the doctor should consider what he plans to do before he decides to put you into a medically induced coma, no? "The problem isn't that he put you in a coma, it's just that he didn't first consider what he should do next." See the flaw in that logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    Starting from the top in Washington, which is the only place national standards can be set, leaders have offered no plan for businesses to reopen safely.
    Since this is the third most populous country on earth, with a variety of cultures and environments, why are national standards appropriate?

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    I like and support Starting Strength, but protest and defy all you want, but you will not defeat, outsmart, or avoid the virus.
    When did anyone here suggest that we could?

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    I might suggest your legitimate concerns be directed towards electing responsible leaders who follow the scientific evidence, and lead the country together through a crisis, rather than pit factions against one another.
    If only things were so simple. Show me those candidates and I will cast my vote.
    Last edited by Ray Gillenwater; 05-19-2020 at 12:56 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    I’ve resisted for days responding to this. But I just disagree so forcefully with what you wrote, that I just have to say something.

    It looks like this is your argument for flouting regulations and requiring employees to come to work or risk dismissal without the benefit of collecting unemployment insurance:

    I) The shut down is causing irreparable harm. It is possibly costlier and deadlier the effects of the disease.

    II) The people who are recommending the shut down were incorrect before, so therefore should be ignored now.

    III) Younger and healthier people are HIGHLY unlikely to die from the illness, while only “specific groups” with underlying illnesses are at risk.

    Therefore, you will not comply with government regulations for the reasons above and the simple fact that you don’t feel any requirement to follow laws and regulations enacted by governing authorities.

    Did I get that mostly right? If so, let's deal with this tendentious piece’s arguments. (It does intrigue me that you do not acknowledge any reasonable disagreements and that your arguments rely on a fairly seletctive listing of facts.) My disagreements follow:

    I) I’m gonna ignore all the different ways a $20tn economy made up of 300mm+ individuals is different from a human body. (Just one example:There is no CNS which drives the rest of the economy). Neither of us knows, but there is a real case to be made that in order to get past the current shut down we must deal with the disease first, whether through vaccines or treatments. One example is that people may still not go out even if restrictions are removed. I can tell you that my wife and I plan to telework indefinitely.

    FYI - Your GAO reference is from fiscal year 2008, which ended September 30, 2009. In other words, it covers the absolute worst period of the Global Financial Crisis. Do you have anything more recent? It doesn’t really matter, as your argument stands or falls regardless of this data. It is interesting you chose to include archaic data in here. All I’ll say is that a quickly growing economy can do wonders for a government tax revenues and defecits.

    II) The ‘experts’ changed their mind when new evidence became available. What do you do when you find out new stuff that contradicts previously held beliefs?

    III). This is the area where I feel your entire case collapses. You say that only specific groups: A) The elderly and B) those with “Underlying Conditions” are at risk from the disease. But…..You have described the majority of Americans here. You ignore the fact that the “Elderly” (I’m not sure how you define – over 65?) are citizens with the same rights as you. But, and most importantly people with “Underlying Conditions” rather than being part of ‘specific groups’ are the majority of our population!

    Here are some of the underlying illnesses you mentioned and the percent of Americans with those illnesses (Note, I can send you the sites, but they all come from places like the American Heart Association, etc)

    Heart Disease: 48% of all Americans have this
    Hypertension: 33% of all American Adults.
    G/I Disease: 18% of Americans.
    Cancer: 13% of American women get Breast Cancer and 11% of Men get Prostate Cancer
    Diabetes: 10.5% of Americans
    Asthma: 7.7% of Adults and 8.4% of children.

    Note that I didn’t even include the other underlying conditions mentioned: Liver, Kidney, Autoimmune diseases, obesity or the numerous cancers other than breast and prostate.

    Now, undoubtedly some people have more than one of these conditions. But, It looks like the majority and likely over 2/3rds of the population have some sort of underlying condition.

    Let’s also point out, that even for survivors, this is not a pleasant disease and can carry long-term effects. Some people come out with only 25% of lung function and an uncertain prognosis. Moreover, the disease is straining our system and “Elective Surgery” has been cancelled in many hospitals. (Note that Elective surgery is NOT face lifts and liposction. It is just surgery that is scheduled in advance, like my friend’s mastectomy to remove a cancerous tumor.)

    So, 1) there’s a strong case to be made that without a shutdown people may not go out, travel, etc and recovery will be limited until there is some sort of solution. 2) Most importantly your health data, while accurate, is incomplete and misleading. The disease is MUCH riskier than your stats show. In fact, the REVERSE of your story is true. The vast majority of people are at risk as the vast majority of people have those underlying conditions. Note I have asymptomatic crohns, so I count as one of those “unhealthy” people despite my 400lb squat, 500lb deadlift and ~27 minute 5k at 50+ years old and 220lbs.

    Finally, this is a terrible situation which painful choices. I'm not getting haircuts, going to the dentist, going to my gym, going out to eat, etc. And those behaviors multiplied out are no doubt crushing these businesses. But, I'd be even more upset if my behavior were to cause people to become infected with this disease. You may disagree. You may feel that it is more important for you to do what you want and its up to others to worry about the consequences.

    Let me ask you this question: Lets say that opening your gym was guaranteed to cause a handful of deaths. Would you still do it? Or is it your contention that that is not the case, or that any risks are so miniscule as to not worry about?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Ocean City, MD
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    This is a very weak devil's advocate attempt.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agilic View Post
    This is a very weak devil's advocate attempt.
    cool...tell me where I went wrong?

    Ray said that only those with underlying issues were at risk. I showed him that a majority of adults have those underlying issues.
    Ray said that the shut down is more damaging than letting the disease run its course. I think many can disagree with this. People will still not go out til they feel safe and a shut down may be the only way to get this virus under control.
    Ray used some 12 year old data. I have nothing current, but asked him to show me something current.
    Ray said, ignore the experts because they change their opinion when proved wrong. I said, I like experts who change their opinion when they learn.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agilic View Post
    This is a very weak devil's advocate attempt.
    Agreed. These are the same points others made on this board 6 weeks ago. They were weak arguments then. With the data we have now they're complete nonsense. Mockery is the only proper response.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    Agreed. These are the same points others made on this board 6 weeks ago. They were weak arguments then. With the data we have now they're complete nonsense. Mockery is the only proper response.
    Still, I'd love to learn from you. You could mock me or address my points. Could you answer these questions?
    1) Is the disease less contagious and/or less deadly than it has been described in the MSM?
    2) Is it not my responsibility to wear a mask, do social distancing, wash hands, etc even if it IS as deadly as some claim?

    I feel like much of the arguments here are:
    1) Its not as bad as people say
    2) Even if it is, I'm not gonna do anything.

    Is that your case?

  8. #18
    Ray Gillenwater's Avatar
    Ray Gillenwater is offline Administrator, Starting Strength Gyms
    Starting Strength Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post

    It looks like this is your argument for flouting regulations and requiring employees to come to work or risk dismissal without the benefit of collecting unemployment insurance.
    If an employee is unable to work because they work for an "unessential" business that has been shut down (including ours, even if we "illegally" reopen), I believe they qualify for unemployment. However, if we rely on this for too long, we risk economic catastrophe.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    I) The shut down is causing irreparable harm. It is possibly costlier and deadlier the effects of the disease.
    Yes, thank you for representing my views accurately.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    II) The people who are recommending the shut down were incorrect before, so therefore should be ignored now.
    Not quite. The people recommending the shut down have an incentive structure that does not put individual freedom and the totality of our collective interests at the forefront of their priority list. Their incentives put perception above all else and many of them are compromised as a result.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    III) Younger and healthier people are HIGHLY unlikely to die from the illness, while only “specific groups” with underlying illnesses are at risk.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Therefore, you will not comply with government regulations for the reasons above and the simple fact that you don’t feel any requirement to follow laws and regulations enacted by governing authorities.
    Close. I believe it is my duty as an American citizen to actively disobey unconstitutional decrees to combat the slippery slope of authoritarianism. I can fight this battle in court, but by the time a decision is reached, we'll likely be bankrupt. I can build a coalition of small businesses to fight in court, but this is a lengthy, expensive solution. I'd rather just state very clearly that I reject any government's attempts at deciding whether or not I can make an honest living and whether or not I'm allowed to leave my home. These rights may be temporarily suspended during times of extreme uncertainty, but I reject any perpetual suspension of my rights and I hope that you do too.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    I) there is a real case to be made that in order to get past the current shut down we must deal with the disease first, whether through vaccines or treatments. One example is that people may still not go out even if restrictions are removed. I can tell you that my wife and I plan to telework indefinitely.
    It is your right to decide whether or not you're going expose yourself to the virus. I am glad you're in a position where you can work remotely. I hope your company weathers the storm and the economy is intact for you to continue to have good options. I'm fortunate enough to be in a similar situation. If you and I are subjected to a lengthy lock-down, it's an inconvenience. For many others it's pain, suffering, abuse, and/or death. I have no right to decide what's best for these people and I don't believe that the government does either. Why should they not be allowed to make their own choices?

    There is a case to made for dealing with the disease first. There's also a case to be made for risking exposure to the disease if your personal risk calculation justifies it. I believe this should be left up to the individual unless you're comfortable with the collateral damage of someone else deciding for them. I am not.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    FYI - Your GAO reference is from fiscal year 2008, which ended September 30, 2009. In other words, it covers the absolute worst period of the Global Financial Crisis. Do you have anything more recent? It doesn’t really matter, as your argument stands or falls regardless of this data. It is interesting you chose to include archaic data in here. All I’ll say is that a quickly growing economy can do wonders for a government tax revenues and defecits.
    Good catch. I didn't realize the data was outdated. Here is a current snapshot with the same conclusion - we are on an unsustainable fiscal path. I'm glad your position isn't contrary to this view.

    A quickly growing economy is what's prevented us from feeling the pain of this un-sustainability. My point is that we are now in a recession and we may be headed towards a depression (prolonged and severe economic decline) which means we may soon feel the pain of our fiscal irresponsibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    II) The ‘experts’ changed their mind when new evidence became available. What do you do when you find out new stuff that contradicts previously held beliefs?
    Expert opinions should not be believed based purely on a person's credentials. We both agree that the appeal to authority logical fallacy is worth avoiding, correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    III). This is the area where I feel your entire case collapses. You say that only specific groups: A) The elderly and B) those with “Underlying Conditions” are at risk from the disease. But…..You have described the majority of Americans here. You ignore the fact that the “Elderly” (I’m not sure how you define – over 65?) are citizens with the same rights as you. But, and most importantly people with “Underlying Conditions” rather than being part of ‘specific groups’ are the majority of our population!

    It looks like the majority and likely over 2/3rds of the population have some sort of underlying condition.
    This is a non sequitur. My assertion stands whether the group of people at risk is 150 people or 150 million people. People should be "allowed" to make their own risk assessment and determine whether or not that want to be exposed to this virus. If a 72-year old obese diabetic wants to volunteer at the museum, should he be forced to stay home? What if he's battling addiction and depression and would rather watch young families enjoy themselves instead of limiting his exposure to COVID-19? Why should the government decide how he is able to spend the rest of his time on earth?

    Assuming your numbers are accurate, should 1/3 of the population suffer to protect 2/3 of the population from themselves? Let's just pretend it's three people we're talking about. One is 30, he trains, eats right, sleeps well, and takes care of himself. The other is 82. The third is 47, a type II diabetic, and obese due to his own life choices. Do we mandate that all three of them self-isolate? Or do we say, "Two of you might die if you don't take extreme precautions. Do with that information what you'd like."

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Let’s also point out, that even for survivors, this is not a pleasant disease and can carry long-term effects. Some people come out with only 25% of lung function and an uncertain prognosis.
    This is outside of the scope of my article. I was focusing on the risk of death. The risk of illness and long-term damage from illness should also be considered, although I hope we agree is not relevant to the "do we shut down half of the economy" decision. I fear that the goal posts have changed from "preventing deaths" to "preventing illness" which is a dangerous conflation.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    your health data, while accurate, is incomplete and misleading. The disease is MUCH riskier than your stats show.
    I did not intend to mislead you with the data I provided. I intended to suggest that if you are young and healthy, COVID-19 is not your biggest existential risk, likely by a long shot. Do you disagree with this?

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Finally, this is a terrible situation which painful choices. I'm not getting haircuts, going to the dentist, going to my gym, going out to eat, etc. And those behaviors multiplied out are no doubt crushing these businesses. But, I'd be even more upset if my behavior were to cause people to become infected with this disease.
    I agree that this is painful. I agree that not patronizing these businesses is awful for you and them. I understand your desire to not want to infect others. If your barber or dentist is willing to accept the risk, and you are too, should that be allowed?

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Let me ask you this question: Lets say that opening your gym was guaranteed to cause a handful of deaths. Would you still do it? Or is it your contention that that is not the case, or that any risks are so minuscule as to not worry about?
    The philosophical thought experiments are fun, but I don't find them useful when they require imagining an alternate reality. We don't know what's going to happen in the future which is why we have to make difficult decisions based on incomplete information. This is the nature of existence and both action and inaction can be costly, and in ways that were impossible to predict.

    Question for you: How long are you willing to self-isolate? If we don't have a treatment or a cure nine months from now, will you still be isolated in your home, without having come into close physical contact with anyone other than those you live with? Is this a decision that you'd like to make for yourself? Or do you want the government to make it on your behalf?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Still, I'd love to learn from you. You could mock me or address my points. Could you answer these questions?
    1) Is the disease less contagious and/or less deadly than it has been described in the MSM?
    2) Is it not my responsibility to wear a mask, do social distancing, wash hands, etc even if it IS as deadly as some claim?

    I feel like much of the arguments here are:
    1) Its not as bad as people say
    2) Even if it is, I'm not gonna do anything.

    Is that your case?
    1 is yes, 2 is a a non sequitur.

    I'm just going to mock you . If you are serious and want me to give you links because you can't do your own research, my rate is $20 an hour, one hour minimum. No sensible person lets a toddler talk back without slapping them. You are a child and you will be treated as such.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Murphysboro, IL
    Posts
    29,748

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    I'm just going to mock you . If you are serious and want me to give you links because you can't do your own research, my rate is $20 an hour, one hour minimum. No sensible person lets a toddler talk back without slapping them. You are a child and you will be treated as such.
    One has to wonder what it is that motivates muntz et. al. to troll this particular topic. Boredom from being penned up in the coastal gulag they self selected for?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •