You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #19: You completely misunderstand me and appear to have an issue with civility. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. You completely misunderstand me and appear to have an issue with civility.
I have been civil. But in two posts you elude that I am an ass "What a gas you are. Hahaha. A gas. Get it?" and then accuse me of not being a Democrat.

I do not doubt that you are a Social Democrat and would not question that.

It would be useful to know your ideology. If I'm talking to someone who opposes all forms of public services / regulation of private activities, I will probably take a pass. Ron Paul is insane, and I find arguing with the insane or their acolytes kinda pointless.

No I do not oppose all forms of public service. I do not trust corporations, nor people to always do the right thing. So you can rest assured that you are not arguing with the insane.

You can call it "not trust" if you like. I'll call it "have reasonable expectation of dangerous behaviour".

A definition of trust is: "confident expectation of something", so to me, what your are calling it, is basically "not trust", however you are just using the definition of the word, and not the word itself.

Perhaps you think that such expectations are not reasonable: that it is unreasonable to expect that some corporations will dump toxic waste, that some individuals will toss their household garbage in conservation areas, etc. etc. Forgive me if I wouldn't believe someone who said that.

I have no doubt that these expectations are reasonable, and on top of that I'm fairly confident that if allowed to, there would be some citizens in the state who would indeed do something wrong. However, the point going back to #6, is that the state "as a whole" does not trust its citizens to pump their own gas. Unlike 48 other states, NJ feels that it is indeed a significant threat to public safety to allow its citizens to pump gas.

So we're left with reasonable expectations of actions on the part of some individuals and entities that will endanger or harm others. And I have to assume you're saying we should do nothing to try to avert the danger or prevent the harm. Because we should "trust" people.

Your assumption about me is wrong. I weigh and balance. Should we regulate something if it poses an insignificant danger? Should we regulate something that has never been an issue(solution looking for a problem)?

Personally for the state of NJ, I am all for requiring full-service. I was born in and lived in NJ the majority of my life. I've been employed by the same company in NJ for the past 2 decades.
#1. Full-service gas brings in thousands of jobs for those with little or no skills.
#2. Compared to the average consumer, the attendant is fully aware of safety procedures and in all likelihood can handle an emergency faster than one inside the station and will be better prepared to handle it than the customer.
#3. Keeps the price of gas down. Insurance for only full-serve stations is lower. On the average you only pay .06 a gallon for the attendant to be there then another .02 to .06 for the station to make money. The average higher volume station(100,000+ gallons per month) only pulls in .08 to .10 cents over cost(in NJ) on gas. This covers everything from the attendant, maintenance and utilities then normal retail profit. This number is higher in other states. NJ also benefits from this as we have IIRC the lowest state taxes per gallon of fuel. I think about .14 cents per gallon.
#4. This law is quite old, and there are thousands of customers who have never, or who have rarely pumped their own gas. This could be confusing and frustrating for those who have never pumped their own gas.

But overall, I would trust that for the vast, vast majority it would not be an issue and pose such an insignificant threat to public safety that it does not need to be law. But for the other reasons I outlined, I would like to see it stay. But my feelings were not the motivation behind the original law. The original law was originally put into place as a public safety. A few years back safety was the biggest issue when our governor tossed up the idea to have it repealed. That idea died faster than a Mayfly, thank goodness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC