From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asbestos (pronounced: /æsˈbɛstɒs/ or /æsˈbɛstəs/) is a naturally occurring fibrous silicate mineral. There are six types, all of which are composed of long and thin fibrous crystals, each fibre being composed of many microscopic "fibrils" that can be released into the atmosphere by abrasion and other processes. Inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to various dangerous lung conditions, including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer, so it is now notorious as a serious health and safety hazard.

You cruel bastard! That would be like rubbing your junk on a cactus!

I assume you support the anti vax trucker protests and want to see them here?

Can you explain why?

Can you explain why it’s good for white truckers to protest against health and safety policy … to demand freedom from mandates requiring them to be adults and get vaccinated to save lives, costing hundreds of millions already and intentionally shutting down multiple industries with the goal of hurting the economy as much as possible….but bad for BLM to protest against racist police policies, demanding freedom from being put in prison or murdered with impunity by police for nothing beyond fear of their skin color, protests doing WAY less damage to economies, industry, and commerce? (Portland, which the right claimed was on fire all of 2020, estimated total costs at $23 million, <1/2 what Ford alone lost from the truckers so far).
BLM protests that, in fact, were more successful at changing policy….policy that needed changing unlike the mandates that need strengthening.

So…on board with truckers, or can you avoid blatant (most likely racist) hypocrisy?

Covid kills people. Forced vaccinations stop the killing.

Since you're making the argument that the government should exercise total control over citizen's bodies for the health and safety of one potential human, obviously you now see you must support them taking minor control over your body to force vaccinations for the health and safety of millions of actual viable living people and the nation as a whole, right?

Certainly you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to force dangerous, life changing, sometimes deadly options on mothers but not a pin prick to save multiple actual lives, the economy, and the national sanity....Would you?

One arrested for assault with a caustic chemical, assault and battery, and violation of the health and safety code, one expected to turn herself in on similar charges.... sounds like maybe no charges for the girl in the middle.

Update: second girl arrested for violating covid mandates, battery on a transit employee, conspiracy to commit a crime and the big one, first degree robbery! That charge alone could be 9 years upstate because robbing a taxi/uber/lyft/bus driver is a special circumstance in California that adds 3 years.

That's a great question. The area is semi affluent and known for being pretty conservative.

My guess is that along with people feeling like they are personally successful they are being fed media that describes the progression of scientific understanding as "proof" that scientists who are forming recommendations don't know what they are talking about.

With this type of narrative clouding the purpose and reasons behind the recommendations these people feel like their own success makes them a better judge of what they should be doing for everyone's health and safety.

Add in a little talk about freedom and stigma of being a nerd and you have large social groups that deny the need to follow scientific recommendations that are meant to statistically reduce the broad impact of the virus' affects.

So delusional.
You asked why, which was answered in the video clearly....I guess reality means nothing to you. An impossible dream of some magically universally enriching personal responsibility (your plan-all you need to do is save that money you aren't earning for hard(er) times) means less to me than hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions in socialist handouts and losses.

I live in the real world, not the fantasy where being undereducated, under employed, and destitute is a choice people make. This fictional reality where everyone has the means and opportunity to succeed. If working hard and staying clean was a guarantee of financial success, you might have 1/2 a point to make, but it's not.

Yep, typical....berate me for being Santa by suggesting paid leave is smart, then pat orange Santa on the back for enacting a more expensive 1/2 ass version of that plan but wasting and grifting hundreds of billions in the process. Having it be federal law before it was too late could have slowed the spread, flattening the curve....1/2 measures long after it's an epidemic won't.

Economy, in the toilet. Unemployment, jumping faster than the great depression. Health and safety, a memory. Infrastructure, completely forgotten. Debt and deficit, skyrocketing like never before in history. How exactly are you winning today?

Come on, where's my "red tsunami 2020"?

Those bird people really need a union and a health and safety officer

Fair points, but this is obviously a prototype.

Ultimately, the price of these will come down and even if you need to swap out the batteries, there's no reason that can't be automated too. Hell, a roomba basically does that now. The point is it doesn't need sleep or meal breaks and it doesn't care about working hours. Or you just leave it connected to a permanent power source (if you can teach it to drywall, you can teach it to avoid the cable).

And yeah, my numbers are obviously estimates, since this isn't commercially available yet, and you'd need to factor in capital investment, maintenance, etc. But you don't have to pay it a salary, it doesn't need medical and it doesn't have to comply with health and safety regs (at least, not for the robots H&S).

I find it difficult to believe that something like this could ever be less cost-effective than a human.

Of course, that's assuming a steady rate of improvement. Bipedal robots (like self-driving cars) have been "90% there" for many years now. It might be that the last 10% is REALLY, REALLY difficult.

My gut feeling is that we will see a tipping point. There will be some really challenging engineering/programming obstacle that stops these going mainstream, but eventually, someone will solve it and then the rate of progress will be exponential.

But you're right in that, that's certainly a few years away yet. I'm fascinated as to how we as a society/civilisation deal with mass automation.

I could use the same argument to try to outlaw cars.
When someone complains about smokers outdoors, I ask them if they drove there to complain, then offer a deal. They sit in their car with the exhaust plumbed into the window, I'll sit in a box smoking a fat cigar, last one breathing wins the debate.
Oddly, no one ever takes me up on that, but at least they all sheepishly drop their complaints.

As to banning it in private homes, this is a terribly slippery slope that gives power to others to decide what's dangerous to you....now consider getting too little sleep has proven to be harmful, so why not a legally enforced bed time based on the youngest or oldest person on your block? Your second hand noise might keep them up, harming them, so night night time is now 6pm. Consider all the food issues you mentioned as second hand groceries, because children have little option but to eat what parents supply, so no more sugar, salt, or processed foods in the stores because they might buy them.

The questions about health and safety vs freedom to be unhealthy are not simple ones to resolve, and it's impossible to fully safeguard both.

As much as I love Steve Hughes, and as much as I hate taking a comedy bit seriously, he's pretty much wrong about every single point in this video.

Oppressive health and safety? Oh please can we return to when employers could order me to endanger my life just for a paycheck.

PC? Been down this road a million times, but it's really easy for a straight white dude to talk about not being offended.

Smoking? I give zero fucks if you want to smoke, just don't do it around me. Oh, and I was in Ireland when they banned smoking in pubs. It was fucking great, and yeah, it encouraged a bunch of people to quit.

Anyway, as I said, it's a comedy bit and it's funny. Just don't go actually believing it.

I think the argument is not that his behavior is stunning etiquette, but it is understandable and his frustration is relatable. Optimally he would've just sat in silence, or driven around to the other entrance, but all things considered, her behavior was more unacceptable. Or to put it another way - this was three minutes out of their respective days. There may be an infinite number of circumstances on either side that we don't see, that would swing our opinion either way. However, if we ignore their emotional states, and just look at the principle, she was dead wrong.

If a restaurant or movie theatre wants to kick you out in the middle of a meal, you can't stay. If a hotel wants to kick you out at 2 am (and lets you pack and take your stuff), you can't stay. That's why they can call the cops to get you out if you refuse to leave - because they have the presumptive right to decide who stays and goes. You have no right to call the cops and ask them to stop the owner from kicking you out, because you have no fundamental right to stay there.

I am not going to say that you're trolling, and your arguments are not unreasonable or dickish, but you're wrong. (In principle) you have a number of potential recourses that you can choose when a proprietor asks you to leave. (in principle) refusing to leave is not one of the options you have any right to exercise.

We can come up with scenarios where it could be argued that you should be allowed to refuse to leave:

1. You're staying at a ski lodge and you will die if you are kicked out into the cold. Then we're no longer talking consumer rights but emergency / health and safety rights.

2. If you leave the premises, you would lose all your other means of recourse, for example if you don't have contact or identifying information for the business you're at. In that case you can ask for that information, and then leave.

In principle, however, sticking around isn't an option, and there's no sane reason why it should be an option. If the business in question doesn't have a valid reason for kicking you out, you get to sue them afterwards.

I'm not sure we should be sympathetic to convicted pedophiles, even if it is a brain disorder.

There was a scene in Nymphomaniac where the main character forces someone to admit they were a pedophile. When she's telling this to someone else later, her listener says something along the lines of "I hope you made him pay for being a pedophile."

She disagrees. When asked why, she says, "If someone is sexually attracted to children, and knows they're sexually attracted to children, but doesn't act on it because they know it's wrong and keeps it hidden, he deserves a medal."

At the end of the day, the convicted pedophile acted on his sexual desires, and forced themselves on a child. If the crossed-wire theory is true, this is akin to a man being sexually attracted to a woman who isn't interested, but forces himself on her anyway.

The problem of seeing it as a mental illness is that we're in danger of letting slide the fact that this person decided his desires were more important than the health and safety of another person. That's where the crime lies.

I like how at some point, they decided to weld on a safety screen and give the driver gloves... After many tests with no windscreen at all...

Guessing Russian, they seem to have a healthy disregard for workplace health and safety...

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

While some of these are definitely win, a lot of them are the reason health and safety standards exist.