(March 6, 2017 at 9:20 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 5, 2017 at 10:45 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Okay, this is sad, and there was probably stupidity involved.  But can you really chalk this up to Catholicism or christianity, or religion?  It's just rural cusidness.  Cities and more secular people have their own fire idiocies. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html  

Some people who are religious are stupid.  So are some atheists I know.  The difference I see is that few atheists are atheists because they are stupid or mendacious, while quite a few religious extremists are extremists because they are one the other or both.

A lot of religious conservatives were (or still are) Ron Paul supporters; they believe that they don't need any type of government assistance at all.  It's not at all surprising to me to see these types of people believing that they don't need smoke alarms in their homes.  What a pity!

And the connection between not wanting government assistance and not having a smoke detectors is?

(March 6, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 9:20 am)Jehanne Wrote: A lot of religious conservatives were (or still are) Ron Paul supporters; they believe that they don't need any type of government assistance at all.  It's not at all surprising to me to see these types of people believing that they don't need smoke alarms in their homes.  What a pity!

And the connection between  not wanting government assistance and not having a smoke detectors is?

As a family, we went through financial hardship a few years ago, and our local government installed smoke detectors in our home free of charge.

---

(March 6, 2017 at 11:08 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 9:20 am)Jehanne Wrote: It's not at all surprising to me to see these types of people believing that they don't need smoke alarms in their homes.  What a pity!

Well, that's not the case in this story, because Massachusetts law requires smoke and CO² detectors in all residences.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your generalizing.

Stayed tuned; there will be a report from a Massachusetts fire inspector.  Let's see what that says!  If Dad was in violation of the law, he should at least feel worse than he does, if not prosecuted.

---

(March 6, 2017 at 11:18 am)abaris Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 9:20 am)Jehanne Wrote: It's not at all surprising to me to see these types of people believing that they don't need smoke alarms in their homes.  What a pity!

You know there's that anecdote about the french queen Marie Antoinette. Once she got news about the peasants not having bread. She was confused and asked, if they haven't got bread, why don't they eat cake?

That's what your reply on smoke detectors reminds me of.

Apples & Oranges.  The First Estate in France cared very little about the well-being of the Third Estate.

P.S. Do a compare sometime between the Republic of today and the Monarchy prior to the Revolution. I will promise to read it.

(March 6, 2017 at 8:27 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And the connection between  not wanting government assistance and not having a smoke detectors is?

As a family, we went through financial hardship a few years ago, and our local government installed smoke detectors in our home free of charge.

So your reasoning is:

Some Catholics are Ron Paul supporters.
Ron Paul is against government assistance.
Because Ron Paul is against government assistance all of his supporters will not accept any government assistance.
You suffered financially and a governmental unit installed smoke detectors for you.
Therefore this Catholic family must have refused to accept smoke detectors for religious reasons.

That fails on so many logical fallacies it's hard to know where to begin.But I'll try.

Just because some A's are B, does not mean that all A's are B.  So the Catholic family has not been shown to be Ron Paul supporters.

A was Y.  A received Z.  But that does not mean all people who are Y receive Z.   So we don't know if this family could gave gotten a free smoke detector.  Do we even know if they were struggling financially?

Many yellow people support X.  A is yellow.  But that doesn't mean all yellow people support X.  So we don't know if this Catholic family supports Ron Paul.  

A supports B.  B is against govermental subsidies.  But it does not follow either that A is against government subsidies or that everyone who is against government subsidies will not accept them personally.

That's at least five breaks in your logical train.

(March 6, 2017 at 9:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 8:27 pm)Jehanne Wrote: As a family, we went through financial hardship a few years ago, and our local government installed smoke detectors in our home free of charge.

So your reasoning is:

Some Catholics are Ron Paul supporters.
Ron Paul is against government assistance.
Because Ron Paul is against government assistance all of his supporters will not accept any government assistance.
You suffered financially and a governmental unit installed smoke detectors for you.
Therefore this Catholic family must have refused to accept smoke detectors for religious reasons.

That fails on so many logical fallacies it's hard to know where to begin.But I'll try.

Just because some A's are B, does not mean that all A's are B.  So the Catholic family has not been shown to be Ron Paul supporters.

A was Y.  A received Z.  But that does not mean all people who are Y receive Z.   So we don't know if this family could gave gotten a free smoke detector.  Do we even know if they were struggling financially?

Many yellow people support X.  A is yellow.  But that doesn't mean all yellow people support X.  So we don't know if this Catholic family supports Ron Paul.  

A supports B.  B is against govermental subsidies.  But it does not follow either that A is against government subsidies or that everyone who is against government subsidies will not accept them personally.

That's at least five breaks in your logical train.

My appeal is not to logic per se, but one of statistics.  In other words, my argument is not deductive but statistical:

1)  Houses sometimes burn to the ground.

2)  Having smoke detectors on every floor is a good thing, in that it allows a family to escape a burning home sooner.

3)  Escaping a burning home sooner will save lives, especially, those of little children.

Conclusion:  Government programs that provide and install smoke alarms in homes of poor people who otherwise could not afford them is a good thing, as it will save lives.

Politicians who oppose such programs are stupid; ditto for people who vote and support such individuals.

(March 6, 2017 at 9:56 pm)Jehanne Wrote: [My appeal is not to logic per se, but one of statistics.  In other words, my argument is not deductive but statistical:

1)  Houses sometimes burn to the ground.

2)  Having smoke detectors on every floor is a good thing, in that it allows a family to escape a burning home sooner.

3)  Escaping a burning home sooner will save lives, especially, those of little children.

Conclusion:  Government programs that provide and install smoke alarms in homes of poor people who otherwise could not afford them is a good thing, as it will save lives.

Politicians who oppose such programs are stupid; ditto for people who vote and support such individuals.

Sure smoke detectors are a fine thing. Can't argue with that. But that's not how you got all the push back in this thread. You got it because you tied failure to install smoke detectors first to Catholicism and then to Paul Rand.

Jehanne, the difference between us seems to be that I'm confortable waiting for that report you reference before assigning stupidity to someone on the basis of their religion.

I wonder if they were strapped financially and tried to get save on the cost of fire alarms.

Such a terrible, terrible price. It shouldn't have happened.

That's all I can say on the matter.

(March 7, 2017 at 1:42 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 9:56 pm)Jehanne Wrote: [My appeal is not to logic per se, but one of statistics.  In other words, my argument is not deductive but statistical:

1)  Houses sometimes burn to the ground.

2)  Having smoke detectors on every floor is a good thing, in that it allows a family to escape a burning home sooner.

3)  Escaping a burning home sooner will save lives, especially, those of little children.

Conclusion:  Government programs that provide and install smoke alarms in homes of poor people who otherwise could not afford them is a good thing, as it will save lives.

Politicians who oppose such programs are stupid; ditto for people who vote and support such individuals.

Sure smoke detectors are a fine thing. Can't argue with that.  But that's not how you got all the push back in this thread.  You got it because you tied failure to install smoke detectors first to Catholicism and then to Paul Rand.

A lot of these people feel that they do not need health insurance, let alone "government mandated" healthcare.  A lot of them do not believe in government regulations, even those which save lives.  A lot of them do not wear seat belts, motor cycle helmets, or bicycle ones.  Most of them deny anthropocentric global warming just as they deny evolution and the efficacy of vaccines, which they see as government influence in their lives.

And, yes, conservative religion is very often tied into this.  If don't believe me, read their literature.  In fact, where these people live there are extremist Catholic groups:

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

---

(March 7, 2017 at 3:48 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Jehanne, the difference between us seems to be that I'm confortable waiting for that report you reference before assigning stupidity to someone on the basis of their religion.

When I read the story, they seemed like they fit the "mold," but, yes, let's wait and see.  If the home did not have smoke alarms, well, it just makes me sick to my stomach!  I pity those poor, little children!!

(March 6, 2017 at 8:27 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Apples & Oranges.  The First Estate in France cared very little about the well-being of the Third Estate.

P.S.  Do a compare sometime between the Republic of today and the Monarchy prior to the Revolution.  I will promise to read it.

You're missing the point entirely. Someone having to run on a wood stove won't have the dosh to fork out for smoke alarms. Which in turn got nothing to do with them being religious or not.

(March 7, 2017 at 9:32 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 7, 2017 at 3:48 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Jehanne, the difference between us seems to be that I'm confortable waiting for that report you reference before assigning stupidity to someone on the basis of their religion.

When I read the story, they seemed like they fit the "mold," but, yes, let's wait and see.  If the home did not have smoke alarms, well, it just makes me sick to my stomach!  I pity those poor, little children!!

Yeah, pigeon-holing is for the birds. Even if they did indeed scrimp on the cost of smoke-detectors, that doesn't mean their poor decision was a result of their Catholicism.

I feel bad for the entire family, both the living and the deceased. The latter suffered horribly but suffer no more, while the former suffer daily for their losses.