Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply - Page 3

starting strength gym
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 79

Thread: Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    • texas starting strength seminar september 2020
    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    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.
    So, I tried to treat your criticism with respect and was met with insults, name calling (and implied physcial violence?). Why so angry, bud?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling View Post
    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?
    My wife told me not to respond. I resisted for a while. I just wanted to at least let a different point of view be heard.

    and yeah, i'm bored being locked up. And yeah, I self-selected for NYC as did my job, my entire family, my wife, her job and her entire family.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    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.
    Sorry -don't think you made this point in the piece, maybe another piece about how these incentives drive The President, multiple governors, Fauci, Birx, Doctors, Universities, The NBA, The MLB, etc?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    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?
    Sure...but that's not what you said in your piece. You said they were wrong before and panicked in April.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    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."
    One of your arguments is that the only groups getting sick are the elderly or those already sick, with the implication that the whole situation isn't so bad and the Gov't is overreacting. It was actually quite convincing til I spent a few seconds googling and realized that 48% of Adults have "Heart Disease." I pointed out that using YOUR chosen definition, the majority of Adult Americans are at risk. If you are now saying that 1/3rd of the people should not self-isolate in order to protect the other 2/3rds. Thats a perfectly legitimate arguement. But, you should state that. Implying that only small groups of people are at

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    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.
    You could say that enduring a terrible hospital stay and losing 50% of lung capacity is 'not relevant.' I disagree. A friend of the family contracted polio over 70 years ago, he sure as hell wish he hadn't spent his whole life with real limitations on his mobility. But, your argument doesn't stand or fall on this either[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    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?
    The 40year old seemingly healthy mom at our kids' school who died from the virus a few weeks ago would certainly disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    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?
    Tough call, and I do think it should be allowed as you describe the situation. However, this thing is likely extremely contagious and even those who are asymptomatic can be spreading it to more of the population. Let's say the barber catches it from one asymptomatic customer, and passes it along to another customer who is asymptomatic. But what if that customer interacts with someone else who gets the disease? Two people in my in-laws apartment bldg came down with it within a few days from eachother. Coincidence? Maybe! Or was it spread by both of them using the same elevator?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    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.
    I think this thought experiment gets to the root of the issue here. I think I showed that your health argument had huge holes. I really think you are opening because you are trying to save your business - something I really, really, really empathize with. But, just come out and say it! That you've looked at the issue and you are okay with any potential damage your opening will likely cause?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    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?
    I hate the govt telling me what to do. I dont trust or like most of the people in govt, and even the good ones do stupid shit. But i do like that they do a safety inspection of the elevator in my building annually, that they insure the fire hydrant in front of my building works, etc. I'm also okay with the police keeping people from randomly firing automatic weapons on my street.

    And, yeah. I actually expect we ALL will still be isolated for many months....My bet is we dont have access to treatments or vaccines til early next year.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling View Post
    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?
    For the integrity of the community, lest we drown in sycophancy and deafen ourselves in the booming echo chamber.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Fairness, not safety, is the chief concern of darrow, muntz, and a large swath of the population.

    That's why businesses which will not close are crucially important: they shift the fairness logic from "if I can't exercise, then they can't either" to "if they can exercise, then I can too." Again, thank you, Ray.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Why so angry, bud?
    This cannot be a serious question.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VNV View Post
    For the integrity of the community, lest we drown in sycophancy and deafen ourselves in the booming echo chamber.
    thanks....there IS something called epistemic closure. Remember, early on, Rip had people front squatting. Then he thought more and learned more and changed his mind and removed front squats from the program.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    This cannot be a serious question.
    not entirely....some sarcasm. but he did just call a 50yr old man a toddler and said all i deserve was mocking and maybe a few smacks. So, i felt a bit of lightness might be the correct response.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    Fairness, not safety, is the chief concern of darrow, muntz, and a large swath of the population.

    That's why businesses which will not close are crucially important: they shift the fairness logic from "if I can't exercise, then they can't either" to "if they can exercise, then I can too." Again, thank you, Ray.
    Maybe my self-conception is incorrect. I thought my chief concern was preventing 10s or 100s of thousands of needless deaths. That said, 'not dying' is a pretty fair outcome, all things considered. So, you may be right.

  10. #30
    Ray Gillenwater's Avatar
    Ray Gillenwater is offline Administrator, Starting Strength Gyms
    Starting Strength Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    180

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Muntz, it's messy to nest multiple layers of conversation, so I'll attempt to reply to your points in summary form here.

    Correct, I did not get into the minutia of incentive structures in my piece. Are you arguing that the incentives of the people and organizations you listed are aligned towards the greater good? If so, I can write at length about how I believe you're wrong and I'm happy to do so if you're open to having you mind changed.

    Yes, I did not explicitly state the appeal to authority logical fallacy in my piece. I merely alluded to the time when our leaders were saying things like "it won't come here" and "it will be gone by April," when they should have been taking measures to prepare. The risk of fallout from the virus was GREATER then than it is now, because we lacked information. As usual, the government has it backwards. Are you arguing that the government has handled this situation appropriately? They had Jan, Feb, and March to prepare, like I did, but failed to, even though their intelligence sources are better than mine.

    I mention the above two points because I want to make sure we're focusing on the topical arguments, not your perceived flaws with my article. I'm happy to talk about both, but the latter is less important. This is especially relevant because you stated that I implied only a small group of people are at risk. You inferred this, I did not imply it. As I've stated, the size of the groups are irrelevant. If this disease only affected people with blonde hair, then those people should be made aware of the risk - it doesn't matter if blondes are 5% of the population or 95% of the population. Let brown-haired people get back to work, because locking them into their homes and preventing them from being productive would be immoral.

    You're absolutely right about the risk of contagion, which is why if you decide that you want to avoid getting the disease, you should treat everyone like they're infected. In the barber shop example, no one should be in the room that is worried about getting the virus. And if you know someone that is going to barbershops, you should treat them like you treat everyone outside of your household - avoid them for fear of contracting the disease. If you are going to lock yourself into your home, why do you want me to be locked into mine?

    Of course we are opening because we want to save our businesses. And because we care about our coaches' ability to make a living and our members' goal of getting stronger. And because we believe that the government doesn't have the right to shut us down indefinitely. And because we are now "allowed" to open anyways. We just aren't going to shut down again, because I don't think there's a good rationale for us to do so, from an individualist perspective or from a collectivist perspective. Do you believe that there is? If so, please explain under what circumstances, within the confines of the current risk, we should ever close our businesses again.

    You mentioned that you're going to self-isolate for many months. You do realize how lucky you are to have the ability to do this, correct? I've received calls from two suicidal young men, who are at a greater risk of dying in a car accident than from COVID-19, within the last month because they are hopeless, broke, and there is no end in sight here in Orange County, California - THE EIGHTH MOST POPULOUS COUNTY IN THE NATION WITH FEWER THAN 100 DEATHS IN ALMOST THREE MONTHS. Last week a friend of mind messaged me apologizing for not be communicative, explaining that his co-worker killed herself. These are the immediate effects happening RIGHT NOW. You haven't spent much time discussing these people. Are they just collateral damage?

    Beyond the immediate effects, do you dismiss my argument that there is likely to be prolonged death and suffering due to an economy that's been severely weakened unnecessarily?

    Where does this desire to control other people come from? It makes no difference to you, because you'll be at home. Do you want to control them for their own good? I'd prefer to "allow" people to do whatever they think is best for themselves, in their specific situation. Assuming to know what's best for them causes unnecessary death and destruction.

    To recap, my main points are as follows:
    1. I acknowedge the government's right to take temporary drastic measures in emergencies
    2. Indefinite business closures and stay-at-home orders contradict the founding principles of this country
    3. Not coincidentally, ignoring these principles causes significant harm to innocent people
    4. If you want to ignore the personal liberties argument and just focus on what causes less death, fine
    5. But I have yet to see any convincing data or any compelling argument that prolonged closures and stay-at-home orders will achieve that goal
    6. What I'm seeing instead is a focus on preventing the spread of this disease at any cost, which I believe is incomplete thinking that amounts to gross negligence

    FWIW, I have no personal problem with you and I respect that you've kept this civil, even though you're clearly not happy with me or my position on this. It's possible that neither of us will change our view and we will never agree. That's okay and I'm glad that I live in a country where this is allowed. I've lived in totalitarian countries that do not have freedom of speech and I much prefer this. My friends from those countries are jealous of our ability to be civilly disobedient and several of them are planning to move. Where will they move to is the question? If we let this place fall into the same trap as the rest of the world - cede total control to a small group of people - then I can't recommend that they move here.

    You realize what happens when you give government complete power over people, correct? Is the TSA ever going away? The Patriot Act? Mass surveillance? You can admit defeat and cede control, for your own safety, if that's what you think is best. I will not.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •