Let the fuckers jump

10/12/2008 9:52:43 PM

Quote :

" ROBBERY AT GUNPOINT This is a tired-ass libertarian exaggeration"

You know what's tired?

Your incessant fucking whining.

10/12/2008 11:22:12 PM

This is laughable. Not only is California in a budget crisis they're still making up ridiculous things to pay for like this. No wonder they're out of money.

Its California, so its no wonder that the bleeding heart liberals in San Fran voted for this. It also really makes you wonder whats wrong with society over there if they need to put up "anti suicicde" nets. I don't see these things being erected on bridges in NYC. I guess East Coasters are a lot happier?

10/12/2008 11:50:25 PM

not any happier

just more practical

10/12/2008 11:56:12 PM

^^you are woefully ignorant of a lot of things, this just being the next along the line.

10/13/2008 1:12:39 AM

Quote :

"You know what's tired? Your incessant fucking whining."

Last time I checked it was you whining about BIG GOVERNMENT LIBRULS taking your money away at GUN POINT.

10/13/2008 1:14:36 AM

If California wants a suicide net they need to pay for it out of their own coffers.

10/13/2008 1:41:54 AM

Quote :

"Its California, so its no wonder that the bleeding heart liberals in San Fran voted for this. It also really makes you wonder whats wrong with society over there if they need to put up "anti suicicde" nets. I don't see these things being erected on bridges in NYC. I guess East Coasters are a lot happier?"

Your scientific analysis of the situation is outstanding. However, looking at actual (as opposed to imagined) data shows this just isn't the case.

Incidences of suicide by state (numbers from 2005)
Rank State [Division] (2004 rank) Deaths Rate
1 Montana [M] (2T) ....................... 206 ...........22.0
2 Nevada [M] (2T) ......................... 480 ...........19.9
3 Alaska [P] (1). ............................. 131. ..........19.7
...
30 North Carolina [SA] (24T). ......1,009. ..........11.6
...
42 California [P] (42). ................... 3,206. ............8.9
...
49 New York [MA] (50). ...............1,189. ............6.2
50 New Jersey [MA] (48) .................536 .............6.1
51 District of Columbia [SA] (51). .... 33. ............6.0
http://www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2005datapgs.pdf

While California (that liberal hellhole) did have more suicides than New York, so did every other state except for New Jersey (which is kind of shocking, if you think about it). Of course, California is still basically at the bottom of the list, having far fewer suicides than other liberal hellholes such as NC, Alaska, Montana, and, all in all, 41 other states.

10/13/2008 11:49:36 AM

Quote :

"Its California, so its no wonder that the bleeding heart liberals in San Fran voted for this. It also really makes you wonder whats wrong with society over there if they need to put up "anti suicicde" nets. I don't see these things being erected on bridges in NYC. I guess East Coasters are a lot happier?"

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/study-examines-suicide-tourism-in-new-york-city/

Seems like NYC is one of the suicide capitals of the world.

They put up a suicide barrier on the Empire State Building, but that is obviously a heck of a lot cheaper. I imagine the suicides off the GG Bridge are also a pretty high rate of out of towners who wanted to end their lives at a "name site."

I think this "barrier" is pretty expensive and am a bit wary of using federal funds for this in when the state itself is on the verge of shutting down due to $$$ issues, but there have been studies that show a good deal of the suicides in locations like this are impulsive and that the people would not otherwise have committed suicide. I don't have any really good read on the numbers though.

10/13/2008 2:11:01 PM

then they'll just bring a rope to tie around their neck when they jump off..

i for one might try the suicide net just for fun...

10/13/2008 2:14:54 PM

^^I agree with everything he said.

^

1. Folks who've been planning it for months, made arrangements, and spent the last two weeks of their lives relieved cause their end date is near will not be stopped by the net, and everybody acknowledges that reality. The net is supposed to curb impulsive suicide attempts.
2. I also thought it might be fun to try out the net.

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 2:21 PM. Reason : sss]

10/13/2008 2:17:43 PM

Wouldn't impulsive suicides be better thwarted by putting a pinball machine or something on the bridge?

10/13/2008 3:54:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Golden+Gate+Bridge+suicides&search_type=

10/13/2008 3:57:01 PM

Assuming for the moment we want to solve this problem with government intervention, it seems similar to trying to seal your home off from invading ants, when you've dropped a pie on the floor.

10/13/2008 3:57:24 PM

This isn't about stopping suicides, it is about stopping suicides at the golden gate bridge, which is far costlier to the tax payers than someone who commits suicide at home.

10/13/2008 3:59:20 PM

I think they're better off using the $50 million to fund suicide prevention programs instead. It'll probably save more lives in the long run. I understand the desire to close off an easy suicide route, but there are better, more cost effective and meaningful ways to bring down the suicide rate.

10/13/2008 4:09:09 PM

maybe we should spend $500,000,000,000 to dam up the San Fransisco Bay and fill it with soft pillows and feathers

10/13/2008 4:16:38 PM

Quote :

"I think they're better off using the $50 million to fund suicide prevention programs instead. It'll probably save more lives in the long run."

Because it isn't about suicide prevention.

10/13/2008 4:19:09 PM

what's it about?

10/13/2008 4:24:04 PM

stopping suicides from taking place at one location, which is extremely costly to the city and tax payers.

10/13/2008 4:25:22 PM

Quote :

"stopping suicides"

sounds like suicide prevention to me

Quote :

"Board members said the steel nets, which would hang 20 feet below the bridge and extend about 20 feet from each side, would prevent suicides without harming the bridge's appearance. "This is a vote ... to save lives," said board member Lynne Segal."

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2008 4:28:30 PM

Suicide prevention, to me, is the mental/psychological aspect. This is a purely physical solution...

10/13/2008 4:45:35 PM

Maybe the problem is jumpers don't have good shoes and they accidentally slip and fall

10/13/2008 4:49:48 PM

You planning on adding anything relevant? Just curious...

10/13/2008 4:51:52 PM

yeah ok heres something relevant for you since you're so concerned with what i post...

- this is a complete waste of money
- people who commit suicide are huge pussies
- maybe they should fix the telephones on the bridge before they spend $50,000,000 on a net

10/13/2008 4:53:22 PM

Quote :

"- this is a complete waste of money"

True.

Quote :

"- people who commit suicide are huge pussies"

False.

Quote :

"- maybe they should fix the telephones on the bridge before they spend $50,000,000 on a net"

True.

2/3 ain't bad.

10/13/2008 5:08:02 PM

Quote :

"This isn't about stopping suicides, it is about stopping suicides at the golden gate bridge, which is far costlier to the tax payers than someone who commits suicide at home."

Fair enough if true - do we have any numbers that show a ROI on this?

10/13/2008 5:10:50 PM

Convince us that it's untrue. Government is force. Taxes are not paid, they are taken. If they take the incorrect amount they arrest you and put you in jail. Where's the problem in the statement that taxes are forced redistribution of wealth with the threat of violence or incarceration?

10/13/2008 5:20:52 PM

Quote :

"Convince us that it's untrue. Government is force. Taxes are not paid, they are taken. If they take the incorrect amount they arrest you and put you in jail. Where's the problem in the statement that taxes are forced redistribution of wealth with the threat of violence or incarceration?"

While the statement is technically true, it's the case that all laws are enforced "at gunpoint" essentially, as failure to comply will cause an escalation of force (as higher and higher laws are broken in the process of failing to comply with each escalated level).

To claim that taxation is ROBBERY AT GUNPOINT though is alarmist, hyper-emotional, and an indicator of undiagnosed autism.

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2008 5:26:12 PM

Quote :

"Fair enough if true - do we have any numbers that show a ROI on this?"

I'm not sure anyone has produced an ROI on this expenditure.

10/13/2008 5:53:54 PM

Quote :

"sounds like suicide prevention to me"

at one location.

10/13/2008 5:54:25 PM

^^Terrible. You'd think of all times, we'd see due diligence for a $50 million expenditure these days.

10/13/2008 5:56:37 PM

True, but the real question is, is it a just law and therefore should be enforced at gun point. Many laws should be disobeyed because they are unjust. I, and many others, believe that the level of taxation and the manner in which it is structured is patently unfair and while we are not yet at the point where we are ready to resist it and disobey it is approaching that level.

Interestingly enough, I've never actually heard anyone in favor of our high taxation levels (and don't give me that well in Europe they tax 60% shit) justify it in an honest manner. If you believe it is right you are, in essence, saying that it is morally correct to take money from one person who earned it and use it to pay for the expenses of another. It's very difficult to justify that, IMO. What's even more interesting to me is that the person receiving the money is never you or I, it's someone else who really needs it.

If you are capable of working then this should never be acceptable to you.

Real Libertarians do not object to taxes, they are necessary to fund the government, which does serve a purpose, but in our view it's purposes are minimal. National defense, a legal system (both criminal and civil), and perhaps some infrastructure projects that might be too massive for the private sector (though frankly I have a hard time thinking of an example).

10/13/2008 6:07:28 PM

Quote :

"True, but the real question is, is it a just law and therefore should be enforced at gun point. Many laws should be disobeyed because they are unjust. I, and many others, believe that the level of taxation and the manner in which it is structured is patently unfair and while we are not yet at the point where we are ready to resist it and disobey it is approaching that level."

Luckily your sensibilities aren't what calibrate the decision rules of our society. What we should calibrate on is not only consensus, but also reflection upon our past points of consensus and their consequences. We have to fund our government and its endeavors somehow -- on the backs of the poor is ridiculous.

Quote :

"Interestingly enough, I've never actually heard anyone in favor of our high taxation levels (and don't give me that well in Europe they tax 60% shit) justify it in an honest manner."

If you've never heard anyone argue this "honestly" then you're surprisingly poorly read for someone with such strong opinions on the matter.

Quote :

"If you believe it is right you are, in essence, saying that it is morally correct to take money from one person who earned it and use it to pay for the expenses of another. It's very difficult to justify that, IMO. What's even more interesting to me is that the person receiving the money is never you or I, it's someone else who really needs it. "

You're assuming that salaries always reflect deserts, and beyond this, that peoples' monetary holdings always reflect deserts. Even if this were true (it isn't) you'd have many more hurdles to get over to responsibly hold your position.

If we expect people to work in our society, then we need to make working possible. This means people need to be clothed, they need shelter, they need to be fed, they need to be healthy, and they need to be able to get from point A to point B. That is, if you don't just expect them to starve to death or become indentured servants.

Quote :

"Real Libertarians do not object to taxes, they are necessary to fund the government, which does serve a purpose, but in our view it's purposes are minimal. National defense, a legal system (both criminal and civil), and perhaps some infrastructure projects that might be too massive for the private sector (though frankly I have a hard time thinking of an example)."

Nobody believes in "bloated government." Everybody believes in "minimal government." It depends on what you consider a necessary part of that minimal structure. So please toss out these intellectually dishonest terms.

We do need national defense, and a legal system, and infrastructure. However, we also need to invest in our work force. This means education and the things I listed above. This is what we need to expect people to work and be productive.

There is a cost to existing in a civil, ordered society. To demand the cost from those who cannot afford it is ridiculous. This is why progressive taxation is justified, along with the extra fact that money means less to people when they have much, much more of it.

10/13/2008 6:16:35 PM

Quote :

"stopping suicides from taking place at one location, which is extremely costly to the city and tax payers."

riiiiight... How, exactly, is it expensive to the city and taxpayers?

Body recovery? Well, just stop recovering the bodies unless the family puts up the money to pay for the search. Solved
Investigation? Well, do other suicides, apart from those that happen at the bridge, have such a high cost of investigation? If not, then what is the problem w/ the bridge investigations being so expensive? And don't say "body recovery." You don't have to recover the body to see if a person has had suicidal tendencies. Once again, Solved.

Anything else?

Quote :

"This means education and the things I listed above."

Some might argue that education is better accomplished by the private sector...

Quote :

"There is a cost to existing in a civil, ordered society. To demand the cost from those who cannot afford it is ridiculous."

This is a strawman. No one is saying to fund these things "on the backs of the poor people." Even a flat tax would not be doing such a thing, as the majority of the funds coming in, if we are to believe the crocodile tears, would still be paid by those who earn the most. Moreover, it's been shown time and time again that lowering taxes for all seems to bring in at least the same amount of revenue or more, up to a certain point, of course. This would imply that either the rich aren't paying any taxes at all (but then, shouldn't we still see a decrease in revenue coming in?), or the rich start paying more of their share at lower levels of taxation, while the "non-rich" end up paying less taxes by definition as well, thus shifting the tax away "from the backs of the poor." At what point this occurs is hard to say, but I'd wager that it definitely occurs closer to a flat tax than it does to an asininely "progressive" tax.

10/13/2008 7:38:32 PM

Quote :

"Body recovery? Well, just stop recovering the bodies unless the family puts up the money to pay for the search."

This is ridiculous.

10/13/2008 7:41:51 PM

1. Clean up
2. A body washes up on the banks of the bay, the police have to investigate that as a homicide until evidence points otherwise
3. loss of tourism dollars.

The police cannot decide to not investigate a dead body just because the individual was suicidal.

10/13/2008 7:42:35 PM

1) clean up? if it doesn't wash up, nothing to clean. And I find it hard to believe that "cleanup" is anything exorbitantly expensive. Not compared to however many thousands of murder scenes they have to clean up...

2) and, at the moment the person is identified, they check to see if it's suicide. Again, the evidence for suicides is generally pretty obvious, so that investigation isn't going to take long or cost much. Any other bodies that wash up are, of course, in a different categorie, and I'd expect, once again, that the other hundreds of murder investigations will, again, cost far more than an average of 17 per year for the jumpers.

3) Wat? How exactly is preventing suicides gonna help that? I seriously doubt people are avoiding SF because 17 people kill themselves every year.

10/13/2008 7:47:45 PM

1. Bodies just don't disappear. They resurface. Furthermore, body recovery isn't the only aspect of clean up.

2. It takes an investigation to determine if it is a suicide. Looking at the body, especially one of a jumper, which is bloated and partly eaten won't give a good idea if the victim was suicide.

3. Don't be do obtuse. People committing suicide at any tourist site is bad for tourism.

10/13/2008 7:53:23 PM

1) again, that number must pale in comparison to murder cleanups in the city.
2) again, that number must pale in comparison to murder investigations in the city.
3) sure, if the people are blowing themselves up every day. 17 jumpers a year? Hardly going to put a dent into tourism. Unless, of course, you can find any stats to back up that assertion for SF.

10/13/2008 7:55:56 PM

double post

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 7:56 PM. Reason : dp]

10/13/2008 7:55:56 PM

1. Doesn't mean it isn't cheap and the city shouldn't do something to stop it
2. Look at number 1
3. quit being obtuse.

p.s. I'm still waiting for you to post a court case in which a church was sued because it didn't conduct a marriage.

10/13/2008 8:01:53 PM

1) And the point would be, then, as someone else mentioned before, spend the 50mil in a different way such that it has a much better affect on on the distressed individuals. And yes, it might still cost something, but, it still isn't going to be anything near what the cost of murder cleanups are. Of course, you have yet to provide any numbers for how much it costs...
2) See 1.
3) Thanks for providing statistics!

it really comes down to the fact that you made a claim and are now refusing to back it up.

as for the court case, irrelevant to this thread

10/13/2008 8:12:29 PM

Do you deny that it is cheaper for police to investigate a suicide that happened in someone's house as opposed to the middle of the San Francisco Bay, in which there is a crime scene that spans many miles?

And yes, this net isn't meant to prevent suicides, it is meant to prevent suicides at a specific location. If you can't admit that, then you are completely fucking retarded.

The court case reference is to just remind you.

as an aside, the government of New Zealand puts the price of suicides at $2.9 million per.

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 8:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2008 8:15:48 PM

Quote :

"Some might argue that education is better accomplished by the private sector..."

Then the poor need to be able to afford the education. There also has to be a way to avoid them getting merely "bargain bin" education as well (this means some government-set standards for schools).

I have nothing against the idea of the private sector taking up this slack, but nothing really prevents the gov't from doing it except poor funding. I also don't like the idea of schools not being held to some consistent standard.

Quote :

"This is a strawman. No one is saying to fund these things "on the backs of the poor people." Even a flat tax would not be doing such a thing, as the majority of the funds coming in, if we are to believe the crocodile tears, would still be paid by those who earn the most."

For people who are spending all of what they make (or more) a month on essentials, a 10% tax is going to impact them direly. How can you not see this? This is precisely what "on the backs of the poor" means. It doesn't mean they'd be pulling the majority of the weight in any cases (even if we pooled up 100% of their incomes this wouldn't be the case) -- but placing extra burden on them in their position at all is placing a burden on their backs.

Quote :

"Moreover, it's been shown time and time again that lowering taxes for all seems to bring in at least the same amount of revenue or more, up to a certain point, of course. This would imply that either the rich aren't paying any taxes at all (but then, shouldn't we still see a decrease in revenue coming in?), or the rich start paying more of their share at lower levels of taxation, while the "non-rich" end up paying less taxes by definition as well, thus shifting the tax away "from the backs of the poor." At what point this occurs is hard to say, but I'd wager that it definitely occurs closer to a flat tax than it does to an asininely "progressive" tax."

There's naturally such a thing as "too much" tax. If lowering taxes always increased revenue (as a hard care Reagan-fan would tell you), then we should reduce the income tax rate to 0% (and suddenly be unable to fund anything). I think what you're getting at here is there's some share the rich should pay that constitutes a trade-off. It's an equilibrium point where we're getting the revenue we need to fund essentials. I agree with this. A flat tax, however, is going to shift a lot of burden onto the middle class and lower classes. Equal percentage of total income means a very different thing when a different percentage of that total income goes towards monthly essentials.

10/13/2008 11:50:27 PM

10/13/2008 11:54:23 PM

Does this mean we have to apologize to plants?

10/13/2008 11:57:03 PM

This picture is sad on many different levels.

Quote :

"1. Bodies just don't disappear. They resurface. Furthermore, body recovery isn't the only aspect of clean up. 2. It takes an investigation to determine if it is a suicide. Looking at the body, especially one of a jumper, which is bloated and partly eaten won't give a good idea if the victim was suicide. 3. Don't be do obtuse. People committing suicide at any tourist site is bad for tourism."

1) I don't remember the exact number, but I do remember them saying in that documentary about the bridge jumpers a good number of them are never found. The currents are very strong so they likely get pulled under and get torn up/eaten up by various sea creatures.

3) http://www.sfcvb.org/media/downloads/research/sf_avg_rate.pdf
If there is any effect, it doesn't seem to be a major one.

10/14/2008 6:42:22 AM

Quote :

"Whats to say they will not just crawl off the edge of the net?"

I LOLed

10/14/2008 6:55:18 AM

Quote :

"Whats to say they will not just crawl off the edge of the net?"

That's exactly what I was going to ask. I really don't understand what it will do. If they put it low enough that you couldn't die if you jumped off of the net, then hitting the net from the bridge would kill you.

But if they put the net (Which is going to be made of fucking STEEL) close enough to the bridge that you can't die from jumping from the bridge onto the net then it would still be high enough to allow a suicidal jump from the net to the water.

Also, if one were to climb up to the top of the two suspension towers the net would do absolutely nothing. It's a typical overly idealistic liberal approach to things. They think that they can protect people from themselves, as if a suicidal person can't find a way around a fucking net or just go somewhere else to kill themselves.

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 9:01 AM. Reason : ]

10/14/2008 9:01:02 AM