On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > > >> See the licensing system for different trades, which is close to medieval >> rules for trade. >> > > Not just close; they are the same in many instances, for good reason. > People in medieval times were not fools. In another example, many building > codes in Pennsylvania are the same today as they were in 1790. > > > I understand that there need to be requirements for certain services. The >> question is who is capable of judging - I for sure know government is >> totally incapable. >> > > All of these standards are set by industry, not by government. The > government enforces standards which are set by organizations such as the > ASME. Many laws simply reference ASME publications saying that products > "will meet these standards." So this statement makes no sense. It is a > tautology: > > This seems like an appropriate moment to bring up an important and neglected men's issue. In the US, men comprise 93% of workplace deaths. (I think it is even higher if you include suicides triggered by work related problems). Why is this considered socially acceptable? When I ask the question I am not calling for more women to endure jobs where they are more likely die. Evidently society regards men's lives as less valuable then women's lives. I will argue that this is a case of systematic sexism towards men. Not so long it was common for women to die during child birth. However, it was decided that it was socially unacceptable for women to endure such risks so money and time was invested on reducing fatalities. Before this change of attitude, I suspect most people were resigned to accept the rate fatalities as part of the natural order or an expression of God's will. I think most people have similar attitude regarding work related deaths among men. Arguments about evolution are usually trotted out to justify the difference. The argument is men evolved to take such risk takers and women evolved to avoid such risks so it is part of the natural order that men should die at such a high rate. But this is a naturalistic fallacy. It would be like saying that since pregnancy evolved to be dangerous nothing should be done to reduce the risk. In the case of male work related deaths a great deal can and should be done. For starters a lot more money should be spent on the enforcement of workplace standards. Are men worth it? Hell yeah! Harry
