Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply - Page 5

starting strength gym
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 79

Thread: Ray Gillenwater: We Will Not Comply

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    • texas starting strength seminar september 2020
    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    Shit. I wrote a long reply...did it go through?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Shit. I wrote a long reply...did it go through?
    Iíve learned the hard way to write first in an external foolproof editor. Fie upon webforms.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Ray, Thanks for stopping the quoting. Im so glad I don't have to do it either!

    You asked us to read your piece. I did. And, I responded to what is in it. You make a lot of good points. While I disagree with you, that does not change my view of you as a person at all. We just disagree. I rarely think an opposing viewpoint is worthless. In fact, those who refuse to consider the other side tend to have the weakest arguments for their own. I just disagree with you, and am not really interested in talking about your follow-on comments. But....Down to it.

    My MAIN point is simple.

    1) There is a very legitimate, logical, moral, ethical and highly defensible libertarian argument about self-responsibility, government getting the fuck out of the way, etc. And there's a solid one on how the shut down has terrible negative consequences, etc.. You present most of these arguments pretty well. You could have stopped there. In fact, I think you should have.

    2) But, curiously, a lot (all?) of the same people who make the libertarian and economic arguments also say that the virus is an overblown hoax. To paraphrase Shakespeare, they are protesting too much. If the libertarian and economic arguments are strong enough, why minimize the effects of the virus? Is there a feeling that those two arguments are not strong enough to stand on their own?

    3) Problematically, the hoax argument simply does not agree with the facts. One example: the most recent statistics in NYC have 22% of confirmed COVID fatalities in people ages 45 to 64. I showed how your point that only special populations die from the disease is (understandably) a mis-reading of the stats. Over half of adults have "underlying illnesses." You tried to make the case that this cohort was only a small percentage of the population.

    So, look, lets integrate this. It seems to be pretty simple to comply with many/most recommendations about social distancing: Masks upon entering and exiting the gym. 6 feet between people training. If the coach is gonna touch someone, the coach should wear gloves and a mask. You could even look into some sort of lucite/glass/plastic barriers between racks. Between classes, someone could wipe down bars, plates, racks, etc. Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. I bet you could come up with more and better ones.

    Rather than saying the whole thing is a hoax and all y'all are on your own, you could say: We take this situation very seriously and this is what we are doing about it: We are going to do everything we can to reduce all risk, while still staying open and providing a needed service. In fact, if you did, I bet you might even encourage MORE people to join. You might reduce revenue per hour and increase some expenses, but you also might add 2-3 hours to each day! I know that if I could convince my wife that I never came within 6 feet of someone at the gym, that the equipment was sterilized between clients (and maybe there were a VERY serious air filtration system) I'd even be allowed to go.

    So, instead of We Will Not Comply, maybe This Is How We Are Complying While Opening.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Rather than saying the whole thing is a hoax and all y'all are on your own, you could say: We take this situation very seriously and this is what we are doing about it: We are going to do everything we can to reduce all risk, while still staying open and providing a needed service.
    I believe that's what he said.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I believe that's what he said.
    Sort of, but not exactly. The referenced piece had 2 main sections, one of which was minimizing the risk of the virus. It was the faulty reading of the stats that started me on this rant in the first place. Using the stats Ray gave shows that a SIGNIFICANT portion of the adult population is at risk, at least those over 45.

    I"m a huge fan and trying to be constructive. I think a specified, clear plan - some of which I mentioned above - for how y'all are gonna be safe would be highly appealing to many. Im jsut saying shift the emphasis away from calling the virus a hoax and appeals to libertarianism and focus on safety, health and strength. You have some real assets here - even the lack of showers turns out to be a plus!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    68

    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.
    This is actually a spot-on point and why I'm glad muntz's and even Darrow disciple's (where is TDinBristol?) posts have still been co.ing through, and why I've been hoping Rip's posts about "get the hell out of here" and deleting posts have been metaphors and exxagerations.

    But I'm quite new to this convo.

  7. #47
    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

    2) But, curiously, a lot (all?) of the same people who make the libertarian and economic arguments also say that the virus is an overblown hoax. To paraphrase Shakespeare, they are protesting too much. If the libertarian and economic arguments are strong enough, why minimize the effects of the virus? Is there a feeling that those two arguments are not strong enough to stand on their own?
    This is a confirmation bias.

    "Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or support one's prior personal beliefs or values.[1] It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making."

    It's unlikely that you have an accurate view of the group of people you've identified. This is a narrative based on your perception. If you can reference a well constructed study that indicates the COVID/hoax related beliefs of people that self-identify as libertarian, I'm open to having my mind changed. It seems to me that this is your impression of these people. Whether your impression is right or wrong, it has nothing to do with me or my arguments. I personally do not think the virus is a hoax.

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    3) Problematically, the hoax argument simply does not agree with the facts. One example: the most recent statistics in NYC have 22% of confirmed COVID fatalities in people ages 45 to 64. I showed how your point that only special populations die from the disease is (understandably) a mis-reading of the stats. Over half of adults have "underlying illnesses." You tried to make the case that this cohort was only a small percentage of the population.
    Muntz, you've constructed an argument against a group of people's imagined position. Let's focus this discussion on my position.

    The percentage of deaths in the age group you've pointed out does not change the validity of the data I shared, since I represented this cohort in one of my graphs. I never referred to people at risk as a small percentage of the population. This is more confirmation bias.

    My point still stands: not everyone is at high risk of death by COVID. There are at least 100M people in this country under the age of 25, for example. To control their lives to "stop the spread" is negligent and dangerous.

    Even though I didn't make the argument that a small percentage of people are at risk of death by COVID, that argument can certainly be made. Are you aware that there is a well defined group of people that account for 1.7% of the population and represent more than half of COVID deaths?

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    It seems to be pretty simple to comply with many/most recommendations about social distancing: Masks upon entering and exiting the gym. 6 feet between people training. If the coach is gonna touch someone, the coach should wear gloves and a mask. You could even look into some sort of lucite/glass/plastic barriers between racks. Between classes, someone could wipe down bars, plates, racks, etc. Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. I bet you could come up with more and better ones.
    I linked to my "Future of Starting Strength Gyms" article in this piece. I've outlined how we are keeping our staff and members as safe as possible. We are not doing this to be compliant, we are doing this because we want to do our part to limit the spread of the virus and reduce overall harm, without preventing people from training. Why assume that we haven't thought deeply about this and/or that we're not taking precautions inside the gym? I specifically called this out in the piece. More confirmation bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Rather than saying the whole thing is a hoax and all y'all are on your own, you could say: We take this situation very seriously and this is what we are doing about it: We are going to do everything we can to reduce all risk, while still staying open and providing a needed service. In fact, if you did, I bet you might even encourage MORE people to join. You might reduce revenue per hour and increase some expenses, but you also might add 2-3 hours to each day! I know that if I could convince my wife that I never came within 6 feet of someone at the gym, that the equipment was sterilized between clients (and maybe there were a VERY serious air filtration system) I'd even be allowed to go.
    I never called it a hoax. We are actively promoting how SS Gyms are some of the safest places to train in the country. Again, why assume otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    So, instead of We Will Not Comply, maybe This Is How We Are Complying While Opening.
    The point of saying "We Will Not Comply" is to clearly state that we believe that these government orders are foolish, dangerous, and unconstitutional. As an American Citizen I believe that it is incumbent upon me to push back against government overreach, for reasons stated in my previous reply to you. I believe this is your duty too, but I don't have any expectations of you or suggestions about how you should behave.

    Our elected officials depend on their image and our perception of them - if we make it clear that we are not going to stand for this nonsense, and articles like mine inspire people to take action, then it might cause our leaders pause next time they attempt to make an unconstitutional power grab. If you want to be compliant and obedient, regardless of how many of your rights are taken away, that is your prerogative. We Will Not Comply. The stakes are too high to water down that message.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    This is a confirmation bias.

    "Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or support one's prior personal beliefs or values.[1] It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making."

    It's unlikely that you have an accurate view of the group of people you've identified. This is a narrative based on your perception. If you can reference a well constructed study that indicates the COVID/hoax related beliefs of people that self-identify as libertarian, I'm open to having my mind changed. It seems to me that this is your impression of these people. Whether your impression is right or wrong, it has nothing to do with me or my arguments. I personally do not think the virus is a hoax.



    Muntz, you've constructed an argument against a group of people's imagined position. Let's focus this discussion on my position.

    The percentage of deaths in the age group you've pointed out does not change the validity of the data I shared, since I represented this cohort in one of my graphs. I never referred to people at risk as a small percentage of the population. This is more confirmation bias.

    My point still stands: not everyone is at high risk of death by COVID. There are at least 100M people in this country under the age of 25, for example. To control their lives to "stop the spread" is negligent and dangerous.

    Even though I didn't make the argument that a small percentage of people are at risk of death by COVID, that argument can certainly be made. Are you aware that there is a well defined group of people that account for 1.7% of the population and represent more than half of COVID deaths?



    I linked to my "Future of Starting Strength Gyms" article in this piece. I've outlined how we are keeping our staff and members as safe as possible. We are not doing this to be compliant, we are doing this because we want to do our part to limit the spread of the virus and reduce overall harm, without preventing people from training. Why assume that we haven't thought deeply about this and/or that we're not taking precautions inside the gym? I specifically called this out in the piece. More confirmation bias?



    I never called it a hoax. We are actively promoting how SS Gyms are some of the safest places to train in the country. Again, why assume otherwise?



    The point of saying "We Will Not Comply" is to clearly state that we believe that these government orders are foolish, dangerous, and unconstitutional. As an American Citizen I believe that it is incumbent upon me to push back against government overreach, for reasons stated in my previous reply to you. I believe this is your duty too, but I don't have any expectations of you or suggestions about how you should behave.

    Our elected officials depend on their image and our perception of them - if we make it clear that we are not going to stand for this nonsense, and articles like mine inspire people to take action, then it might cause our leaders pause next time they attempt to make an unconstitutional power grab. If you want to be compliant and obedient, regardless of how many of your rights are taken away, that is your prerogative. We Will Not Comply. The stakes are too high to water down that message.
    You may be right about Confirmation Bias. It just seemed to me that on this board most people - including you - were arguing for one or both of these:
    1) The danger from COVID to most people is overblown2) The government has not right to tell me what to do - whether it is to wear a mask or to close my business.

    I have not seen anyone say - "this is REALLY dangerous and our actions could put innocent mostly healthy people at risk. However, I am not going to comply with laws and regulations.

    I'd like to point out you keep making point #1 - Around a third of this article attempts to make the point that only the elderly or sick are at risk. And, in this post I'm rseponding to you included AEI stats making a similar point. (I'd argue that the AEI stats, while correct, are misleading. In 2010 nly 13% of americans were over 65. So, even though % mortality is lower in the 45-64 cohort, that group makes up 26% of the population. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/...c2010br-03.pdf

    Also, a lot of people under 25 come into contact with older people. Even if the young ones arent at risk, other people are.

    So, I'm REALLY glad you are emphasizing safety. Its a very good thing. I just wish you'd drop the politics and misleading health stats.
    So: 1) You make a political argument. I have no response to that - you may or may not be correct. But well-meaning people can disagree
    2) You have twice referenced misleading health stats.
    3) You still will be emphasizing safety, for which I'm glad and will be happy to support and recommend SS gyms to anyone I know, assuming all are following the protocols.

    I think we are done with this conversation. Will let you have the last word, but I think we've both made our points.

    Now, if I only I could find and SS bar and some plates!

  9. #49
    Ray Gillenwater's Avatar
    Ray Gillenwater is offline Administrator, Starting Strength Gyms
    Starting Strength Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Muntz, yes, the danger of death by COVID-19 is overblown. If youíre one of the 100M people in the country under the age of 25, you should be more worried about driving to work than dying of COVID-19. Do you disagree?

    And correct, the government has no right to tell us what to do, whether itís to wear a mask or close our businesses. What is unclear about our constitutional rights? Do you believe they can be suspended indefinitely? If not, what do you believe?

    Why would we say ďthis is really dangerousĒ when that statement doesnít apply to everyone? Isnít it clear that this should be emphasized to the people that itís actually dangerous to?

    Yes, there are tens of millions of elderly people in this country and they need to decide for themselves what level of exposure theyíre willing to tolerate. Unless you think that Newsom or Cuomo is more qualified to decide on their behalf?

    I realize plenty of people under 25 come into contact with the elderly. Whose responsibility is it to mitigate this risk? Why do you want strangers to decide for these at risk people? You do acknowledge that every set of circumstances is different and forcing one solution upon an entire population causes unnecessary harm, correct?

    You say I should drop the politics. Why do you feel entitled to an opinion about how I should behave? Are you noticing a theme here? You have a preference about what I should talk about and how I should behave. You have a preference about what others should and should not be allowed to do, even if the stakes are death and/or financial catastrophe. Iíll ask it again since you didnít reply the first time I asked: where does this desire to control other people come from?

    Regarding politics and whether or not itís prudent for me to get political: this is a personal decision and one that my business partners support. Imagine having a job where your speech wasnít suppressed? This is why Iím an entrepreneur. I can say what I think is important to say. Some entrepreneurs say what they think other people want to hear, and sometimes that disingenuous nonsense helps business. I find it nauseating and prefer to work with real people that have values - and values are only meaningful if youíre willing to pay a price for them.

    If the government continues to ignore our values, our livelihood is at risk. In other words, we have nothing to lose so we are going to take a risk and stand up against tyranny of the masses (the attempted control from people like yourself that wish to coerce others) and authoritarianism (near complete government control over our lives). Youíre welcome to disagree with my logic and/or my principles, but I resent your suggestion that I should change my behavior to match your preferences.

    The summary of your last post was that I should drop politics and not post misleading data. Your confirmation bias is whatís causing you to refer to the data as misleading. I downloaded the data off of the NYC website, made two graphs, and highlighted a few statistics that indicate that not everyone needs to put their lives on hold because not everyone is at high risk of dying from COVID. The data is the raw information, it is not misleading. My analysis is not misleading either, as Iíve made clear in this exchange.

    We can end here if youíd like, but Iím happy to continue - especially if youíre able to defend your final two points.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,749

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Saying that this is overblown is not the same as saying itís a hoax. I guess itís convenient to pigeonhole groups of people that way so that you can label them conspiracy theorists and dismiss their concerns.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •