MLD Woody Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 1. St. Francis Dam, 1928Self-taught engineer William Mulholland built this LA dam on a defective foundation and ignored the geology of the surrounding canyon. He also dismissed cracks that formed as soon as the reservoir behind it was filled. Five days later, it ruptured, killing 450 people and destroying entire towns (along with Mulholland’s career). 2. Kansas City Hyatt walkways, 1981Walkways crisscrossing the hotel’s multistory atrium collapsed, domino-style, raining debris and hundreds of people onto the packed dance contest below. The cause: grossly negligent design and use of beams that could support only 30 percent of the load. 3. Vasa, 1628Three hundred years before the Titanic, the Vasa was the biggest sailing vessel of its day. The overloaded ship ruled the seas for all of a mile before she took on water through her too-low gun ports and promptly capsized. 4. Northeastern US power grid, 1965A single protective relay tripped in Ontario, overloading nearby circuits and causing a cascade of outages that left 30 million homes without power for up to 13 hours. A fragile, redundancy-free design ensured that it would happen eventually. 5. McDonnell Douglas DC-10, 1970sNearly a thousand people around the world lost their lives while the kinks were being ironed out of this 290-ton competitor to Boeing’s 747. Blown-out cargo doors, shredded hydraulic lines, and engines dropped midflight were just a few of the behemoth’s early problems. 6. Firestone 500 tires, 1970sThese steel-belted radials allowed water to seep under the tread, which caused the belting to rust and the tread to separate, typically at high speeds. Dozens of deaths later, Firestone blamed consumers, then recalled 10 million tires. 7. Purity Distilling Company tank, 1919You gotta keep your molasses somewhere – how about a rickety tank 50 feet tall and 90 feet in diameter in the middle of Boston? The structure was painted brown to hide the leaks. Eventually it burst (possibly exploding from fermentation), sending waves of molasses up to 15 feet high into the city and killing 21. 8. Skylab, 1973America’s first space station was hopelessly damaged at launch because designers failed to account for the aerodynamics of the meteoroid shield and solar panels. When crews weren’t busy making repairs, they complained of the extreme heat on board. 9. Citigroup Center, 1978Last-minute changes to structural braces of this Manhattan tower left it vulnerable to collapse in high winds. With a hurricane bearing down on the city, builders rushed to strengthen it by welding 2-inch steel plates over 200 weakly bolted joints. 10. R101 airship, 1930Seven years before the Hindenburg disaster, the British thought 5.5 million cubic feet of hydrogen in a bubble of fabric would make for a fun way to get around. On her maiden flight, the airship’s cover was blown open by wind, and from there it was oh-the-humanity city. – Christopher Null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 I didn't watch the video and so I have no idea why you responded with those but I do know the Kansas City Hyatt walkways is a classic engineering disaster which we discussed in school (informally. I was in electrical, not civil, engineering) it serves as a sobering reminder of how seriously engineers must take their jobs and the consequences if we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 .... I don't get Cals response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 I don't either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Really? I did. Anyway I did watch the video. There are some real assholes out there in the world of televangelism. And I think John Oliver is very good. As opposed to the shrike that took over for Colbert. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Who took over for colbert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 That trevor noah is likely going to be the death of the Daily show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 No one took over for Colbert. The Colbert Report ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 What was the point of Cals response then Steve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 No one took over for Colbert. The Colbert Report ended. The Colbert Report was replaced Woody. By another show. That was your best offering? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 What was the point of Cals response then Steve? Oh I suspect you could guess but let me venture that yes there are some bad televangelist out there in the world. There are also some bad engineers. Sound like a good guess? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Took over for Colbert and another show taking the Colbert Reports slot are two different things. Larry Wilmore has his show in that slot now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 http://www.today.com/popculture/colbert-report-will-be-replaced-minority-report-2D79646469 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Steve got it. Trying to ridicule all TV evangelists by posting about the worst of them... if fine with woody, but he doesn't like the same tactic used on engineers. Kinda obvious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Oh I suspect you could guess but let me venture that yes there are some bad televangelist out there in the world. There are also some bad engineers. Sound like a good guess? WSS Umm... I guess. If by bad you mean "bad at their jobs" then sure. If by bad you mean "actually a bad person" then that's probably true too. But I must have missed the examples of engineers preying on the stupid/desperate with religion, basically acting as conmen, to this scale. If Cals response was an attempt to say "well this thing you like is bad too!" he did a pretty poor job of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Steve got it. Trying to ridicule all TV evangelists by posting about the worst of them... if fine with woody, but he doesn't like the same tactic used on engineers. Kinda obvious... Engineers aren't supposed to save souls, have moral high ground or preach the coming of the lord. Invalid comparison in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 The content is different, but the logical structure of the argument is the same. I simply flipped the setup structurally, only I used engineers. Turnabout is fair play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 Except it really isn't Cal... These televangelists are purposely taking advantage of people for monetary gain. The examples you posted were terrible accidents. The scale of this real issue vs your made up one aren't the same either. I think you're just reaching at something here because I posted a thread that puts part Christianity in a negative light. Are you trying to defend their actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 I don't defend these televangelists but because they are wrong does not make Jesus or the bible wrong. Most people have enough discernment to see their phoniness but they do prey big time on the shuts ins and elderly which is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 They're just more open in their use of religion as a scam. They need to tone it down like they're supposed to... But you're right, these people don't prove the bible or Jesus wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 The content is different, but the logical structure of the argument is the same. I simply flipped the setup structurally, only I used engineers. Turnabout is fair play. Not at all. You have one group preying (no pun intended) on those looking for a miracle. The other group accidents of a colossal nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 20, 2015 Report Share Posted August 20, 2015 Yes. Different content. Same mo on generally dissing an entire group of people. Basically, the same structure. The title doesn't say "crazy nutjob evangelists taking advantage of goofy people who believe what they say"... it says evangelists. and I didn't say "crazy nutjob engineers taking advantage of goofy people who believe in what they design". Qubbling about the very end content/details doesn't make the basic logical structures stop being the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted August 20, 2015 Report Share Posted August 20, 2015 Yes. Different content. Same mo on generally dissing an entire group of people. Basically, the same structure. The title doesn't say "crazy nutjob evangelists taking advantage of goofy people who believe what they say"... it says evangelists. Actually, it says Televangelists. More to the point, why offer such a general rebuttal to an entire segment of people when Woody has highlighted with a video a particular few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 20, 2015 Report Share Posted August 20, 2015 Because "televangelists", and Woody says it shows part of Christianity in a bad light. I personally don't call that Christianity. I've always wondered if they are conmen, or just plain not in their right minds, and/or have serious emotional issues. But it isn't just televangelists. There are all sorts of the same preachers who never get on tv. Maybe those engineers had serious emotional issues. Maybe they were just incompetent. But basically, woody is slurring Christianity with this element of dingbats on TV, always pleading for more money, etc etc etc. But the engineers were either totally incompetent, or they took a job for big, big money, knowing that they didn't have a clue how to successfully engineer what they engineered, but took advantage of those officials who hired them, not knowing any better. We don't really know. But basically, Woody posted this as a slur toward Christians in general, pointing out the worst. I posted, sarcastically, the same thing, basically. I posted as a slur to engineers in general, by pointing out the worst. To show a video of teachers, or lawyers, or doctors, in the same "worst of them" scenarios... and it's basically the same logical slur structure. Arguing that teachers don't engineer or preach doesn't change the basic structure of what woody was doing. See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 20, 2015 Report Share Posted August 20, 2015 Words have meaning, Tiam. Don't parse out a word or two, to have a negative take. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/basically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2015 You're still reaching pretty damn hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 20, 2015 Report Share Posted August 20, 2015 Not searching hard at all. I said basically. You and Tiam ignored "basically". You libs do that to have a pseudo-legit point. I use words for a reason. You attempting to be marginalizing my points by parsing out particular words is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted August 20, 2015 Report Share Posted August 20, 2015 Not searching hard at all. I said basically. You and Tiam ignored "basically". You libs do that to have a pseudo-legit point. I use words for a reason. You attempting to be marginalizing my points by parsing out particular words is nonsense. Easy with that 'lib' label being tossed around there, guy. Can't call a spade when there isn't one. That being said, I don't consider those on TV to be the better representation of Christianity. I consider those people on the tube to be hustlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 20, 2015 Report Share Posted August 20, 2015 True, I take the lib thing back for you. You're just contrary...... some have proven to be hustlers in the worst way. Some, I still wonder if they are all there, to say it politely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.