Amazing Safety Device

Dr. Fetus said:
I don't see how.
Click to expand...


You have to go to the store and pay 60 bucks each time it fails. And I don't want to be the person there when the safety device doesn't kick in exactly right.
Click to expand...
I know you're of the Reagan generation and are under the delusion that you're some beautiful and unique snowflake, but you aren't. Lot's of skilled people lose their fingers in saw accidents every year. This will lower the price of goods, because companies won't have to pay so much workers comp, without touching the quality of goods.
Click to expand...
bbb
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
You have to go to the store and pay 60 bucks each time it fails. And I don't want to be the person there when the safety device doesn't kick in exactly right.

I know you're of the Reagan generation and are under the delusion that you're some beautiful and unique snowflake, but you aren't. Lot's of skilled people lose their fingers in saw accidents every year. This will lower the price of goods, because companies won't have to pay so much workers comp, without touching the quality of goods.
Click to expand...

Still don't see how any of that contradicts anything.
 
evince said:
what is it about the cons here that makes them hate safety ?
Click to expand...

Because they ascribe to the idiotic and fallacious idea of social darwinism. IE they're evil. In reality, someone with down syndrome is much less intelligent by any objective measure than the person unfortunate enough to have had an accident. So why not kill retards?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what is it about the libs here that makes them unable to be safe on their own?
Click to expand...

If I buy a safety device and use it I am being safe on my own.

An accident can happen to anyone, and having an accident says nothing about the IQ of the person involved. Thinking otherwise is proof that you have a low IQ, and when I am king we will eliminate your kind from the earth.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what is it about the libs here that makes them unable to be safe on their own?
Click to expand...

You are against inventions that help keep people safe? Airbags, seat belts, etc? I have witnessed even the most skilled carpenters have accidents. The items could be equipped with this feature for those who want it and left off for those like you. Seems simple enough. People disable safety features all the time. I guess you don't like carbon monoxide alarms and fire alarms, either?
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
You are against inventions that help keep people safe? Airbags, seat belts, etc? I have witnessed even the most skilled carpenters have accidents. The items could be equipped with this feature for those who want it and left off for those like you. Seems simple enough. People disable safety features all the time. I guess you don't like carbon dioxide alarms and fire alarms, either?
Click to expand...

Hate to be a pedant, but I think you mean carbon monoxide. You are absolutely right though, he is making a fatuous argument.
 
tom prendergast said:
http://www.wimp.com/tablesaw/
Click to expand...

We've come a long long ways. I can remember my grandfater telling me about how when he first started working for the Rail Roads as a young man that the view by management was it was more cost affective to replace a killed or injured worker then a bad set of brakes. The men of his generatrion faught hard to put shit like that to a stop. If it wasn't for the men of that generation an invention like this wouldn't stand a chance of being used in the work place.
 
=IMPERATOR= said:
hey retard you do realize that this safety feature will likely add more money onto the base price and increase profit right?
Click to expand...

The company will make slightly higher profiits, but the costs to the users will drop if you figure in the medical costs of the injuries. And those injuries are VERY common.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
We've come a long long ways. I can remember my grandfater telling me about how when he first started working for the Rail Roads as a young man that the view by management was it was more cost affective to replace a killed or injured worker then a bad set of brakes. The men of his generatrion faught hard to put shit like that to a stop. If it wasn't for the men of that generation an invention like this wouldn't stand a chance of being used in the work place.
Click to expand...

You start requiring companies to pay for a worker's reduced quality of life when someone gets injured on the job, and all of the sudden they're all about safety. Imagine. The free market is beautiful.
 
tom prendergast said:
In the first statement you seem to be saying it isn't very practical, yet in the second you are saying it's a potential life saver, or at least finger saver.
Click to expand...

In the first I'm just pointing out that you'd still want a hand guard. The new device is still a potential life saver, because I wouldn't expect it to fail very often (it may very well be so well designed that there's never an instance of failure). But, theoretically, shit could happen. Like, the wires that detect that the saw is capacitive could fail.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top