every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitubersaurusAugust 10 2007, 20:12:09 UTC
Oh, I could just say that you're equating shoes to people's lives, and leave it at that, but there's no fun in that.
They're safety shoes. They exist for one purpose, and that's to keep your feet from getting crushed. Can you honestly tell me some guy on a factory floor, wearing a grimy jumpsuit, is going to be terribly concerned that he's not wearing designer footwear? Fuck no. He's just going to want to go home, change into normal clothes, and relax. My dad sure as hell doesn't care, and neither do any of his work buddies I've met. If you're in a job that requires steel toed boots, odds are you're gonna look like, and feel like, shit no matter what.
SHOES. COME ON. Do guys in the military constantly complain about how their boots all look the same? Are they standing around the barracks discussing how they want their boots to look like sneakers, or to have extra padding on the soles, or shit like that? GAH.
And even your comparisons are forced! You get the catalog of the newest armani steel toed shoes or some shit, or you can just have the company take your shoe size and give you a pair that you're never gonna wear outside the factory or the mine or the construction site or whatever anyway. I could make the same stupid comparison with the crappy t-shirts they give us at work every year for the reading program. Yeah, I have to wear it here, but I wouldn't be caught dead in public with it on.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitcaspian_xAugust 10 2007, 20:33:39 UTC
Safety shoes are not only worn by people on the manufacturing floor. Many engineers, who spend 75% of their days in their offices or cubicles, wear safety shoes every day because for those few and far between times when they need to go into a safety shoe required area, they need protection and it's a pain to have to change your shoes or wear those clip-on steel buggers. Therefore, people buy normal-looking safety shoes all the time. Most of my co-workers wear them. They're very common. You can't tell the difference except that the sole is a bit thick. Those same engineers sometimes have social outings or customer meetings right after work and don't want to change their shoes. I've even seen people in steel-toed wing tips.
Please do not lecture me about what I know from personal experience every day, you only embarrass yourself.
The analogy is sound - at least as sound as any analogy can be. It's about providing people with choices and treating them like adults instead of forcing them into what Daddy knows is best for them.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitikkarus01August 10 2007, 20:38:36 UTC
The analogy is sound as long as you conveniently ignore the fact that HEALTHCARE IS NOTHING LIKE BUYING SHOES.
Really, dude, you've had some wild pitches in your day, but this one is going to be remembered as particularly zany. It is, in point of fact, completely filled to the brimming with zane.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitcaspian_xAugust 10 2007, 20:48:21 UTC
This is the problem with an analogy. Perhaps I shouldn't use them on people who expect every specific detail to be the same.
The bigger picture is the same: A required good/service, Entity providing funding, individual having choices, competition driving down price. Yes, you're right, buying shoes and buying healthcare have some differences. How very astute of you to point that out. Gold Star. Very similar overarching principles apply, which makes it a FRAKKING ANALOGY AND NOT THE SAME SCENARIO.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitikkarus01August 10 2007, 20:52:15 UTC
And you're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter how apt your analogy is or is not. I'm not even talking about the specifics or details of the analogy. When you start comparing healthcare to shoes you sound crazy. It doesn't help your argument at all.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitcaspian_xAugust 10 2007, 20:55:01 UTC
*Sigh*
I suppose you're right that some people would view it that way. I just don't. I see two essential needs that a larger entity is paying for and two methods that it can be done. Of course one's an over simplification. That's the point of an anology.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitikkarus01August 10 2007, 23:43:49 UTC
Ok, here's the thing: If you were a political candidate you would get flattened for making an analogy like this. You have essentially taken healthcare -- arguably one of the most arcane, byzantine, and altogether screwed up things in this country -- and dumbed it down to the equivalent of nicking off to Payless on your lunch break for a new pair of wingtips. Sounds nutty? You're damn right it does. And that's all you'd hear about it for the rest of your (likely very short) campaign. The issue gets completely lost under the discussion of the method you used to present it. Hell, the Daily Show wouldn't even have to write any material for you. Jon Stewart could just run your clip and stare silently at the camera with his Incredulous Face on to uproarious laughter and applause.
And THAT is what makes it a bad analogy. You know, beyond the fact that healthcare isn't anything like shoes.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitcaspian_xAugust 11 2007, 03:12:22 UTC
Well, yes, if I were running for politics I wouldn't use that analogy. I thought we were having a discourse in which the points people make mattered, not just the reaction they elicit when in a sound bite.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitikkarus01August 11 2007, 03:27:12 UTC
Well, I already made my points about the actual subject in your previous post, and I'm already pretty clear on what you think. So now I'm discussing the manner of your delivery here and why it is, in fact, detrimental to your argument.
You don't have to be running for office to make a political statement. You used that analogy to try to explain why you think that particular proposal is better than the rest. It is a statement of politics with the goal of bringing others around to your side of the argument. I am simply pointing out why it was a poor choice of analogy to accomplish that goal.
You know, when I started this post, I swore I wasn't going to repeat this, because it's in danger of becoming pedantic. But what the hell:
What you MEAN is less important than what you SAY.
My only fear is that I'm going to accidentally groom you for a real shot at a political office someday. Considering how overwhelmingly different our views are on just about anything that matters, I don't think that getting you votes is in my best interests. But I'm a helper and I can't help it. It's a blessing and a curse. What can you do?
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitcaspian_xAugust 11 2007, 03:35:24 UTC
You know, you keep saying that MEAN and SAY business. Sorry, but I cry bullshit.
It's not what I SAY or what I MEAN that you hear. It's what you PERCEIVE and I can't do a damn thing about it.
All I can do say what I mean as clearly as I know how and hope that people interpret what I mean from what I say. If people choose not to, that's really not my problem.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitikkarus01August 11 2007, 03:42:10 UTC
Well thank God for that. At least now I know you'll never get elected to anything. For a second there I was afraid you might start learning the rules. whew.
Re: every blue collar man has a closet full of shoes to go with every jumpsuitubersaurusAugust 10 2007, 20:53:26 UTC
It's as sound as a straw house in California brushfire season, you mean. There's an apt analogy. See, because the house would burn.
Buying shoes and choosing a health insurance company have like, nothing in common. Other than the fact that these shoes protect your feet, and who the hell gives a shit about how they look? They're shoes. Shoes <> health insurance in any way, shape or form. if the company is buying me a pair of shoes to wear at work, then I'm not going to go into a rant about how I want to buy my own shoes that have Big Bird on them. If the company is going to get me health insurance, just the same I'm not going to bitch about how I want the insurance with Big Bird as my doctor. It's free. YAY.
I am nevertheless going to persist in my view that blue collar guys are the major buyers of safety shoes, and aren't going to give a shit if they're pretty or not.
Yes, the vast majority of safety-shoe wearers are likely blue collar. That doesn't mean they don't care what they look like and that doesn't mean that a lot of white collar workers don't wear safety shoes. I'm a software engineer. I will likely need safety shoes starting next month because I will have to walk through an area that requires them.
Of course shoes aren't as important as health care. As I told Ikkarus, you get a gold star for pointing out that very astute point. The point of an analogy is to simplify a complex point. In this case both shoes and health care are necessary goods/services which the larger entity will pay for. In one scenario you have a choice, competition, and lowered prices. In another you have no choice.
They're safety shoes. They exist for one purpose, and that's to keep your feet from getting crushed. Can you honestly tell me some guy on a factory floor, wearing a grimy jumpsuit, is going to be terribly concerned that he's not wearing designer footwear? Fuck no. He's just going to want to go home, change into normal clothes, and relax. My dad sure as hell doesn't care, and neither do any of his work buddies I've met. If you're in a job that requires steel toed boots, odds are you're gonna look like, and feel like, shit no matter what.
SHOES. COME ON. Do guys in the military constantly complain about how their boots all look the same? Are they standing around the barracks discussing how they want their boots to look like sneakers, or to have extra padding on the soles, or shit like that? GAH.
And even your comparisons are forced! You get the catalog of the newest armani steel toed shoes or some shit, or you can just have the company take your shoe size and give you a pair that you're never gonna wear outside the factory or the mine or the construction site or whatever anyway. I could make the same stupid comparison with the crappy t-shirts they give us at work every year for the reading program. Yeah, I have to wear it here, but I wouldn't be caught dead in public with it on.
I have to stop now, my brain is shutting down.
SHOES
Reply
Please do not lecture me about what I know from personal experience every day, you only embarrass yourself.
The analogy is sound - at least as sound as any analogy can be. It's about providing people with choices and treating them like adults instead of forcing them into what Daddy knows is best for them.
Reply
Really, dude, you've had some wild pitches in your day, but this one is going to be remembered as particularly zany. It is, in point of fact, completely filled to the brimming with zane.
Reply
The bigger picture is the same: A required good/service, Entity providing funding, individual having choices, competition driving down price. Yes, you're right, buying shoes and buying healthcare have some differences. How very astute of you to point that out. Gold Star. Very similar overarching principles apply, which makes it a FRAKKING ANALOGY AND NOT THE SAME SCENARIO.
Reply
Reply
I suppose you're right that some people would view it that way. I just don't. I see two essential needs that a larger entity is paying for and two methods that it can be done. Of course one's an over simplification. That's the point of an anology.
Reply
And THAT is what makes it a bad analogy. You know, beyond the fact that healthcare isn't anything like shoes.
Reply
Reply
You don't have to be running for office to make a political statement. You used that analogy to try to explain why you think that particular proposal is better than the rest. It is a statement of politics with the goal of bringing others around to your side of the argument. I am simply pointing out why it was a poor choice of analogy to accomplish that goal.
You know, when I started this post, I swore I wasn't going to repeat this, because it's in danger of becoming pedantic. But what the hell:
What you MEAN is less important than what you SAY.
My only fear is that I'm going to accidentally groom you for a real shot at a political office someday. Considering how overwhelmingly different our views are on just about anything that matters, I don't think that getting you votes is in my best interests. But I'm a helper and I can't help it. It's a blessing and a curse. What can you do?
Reply
It's not what I SAY or what I MEAN that you hear. It's what you PERCEIVE and I can't do a damn thing about it.
All I can do say what I mean as clearly as I know how and hope that people interpret what I mean from what I say. If people choose not to, that's really not my problem.
Reply
Carry on.
Reply
Buying shoes and choosing a health insurance company have like, nothing in common. Other than the fact that these shoes protect your feet, and who the hell gives a shit about how they look? They're shoes. Shoes <> health insurance in any way, shape or form. if the company is buying me a pair of shoes to wear at work, then I'm not going to go into a rant about how I want to buy my own shoes that have Big Bird on them. If the company is going to get me health insurance, just the same I'm not going to bitch about how I want the insurance with Big Bird as my doctor. It's free. YAY.
I am nevertheless going to persist in my view that blue collar guys are the major buyers of safety shoes, and aren't going to give a shit if they're pretty or not.
Reply
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=safety+shoes&btnG=Google+Search
Yes, the vast majority of safety-shoe wearers are likely blue collar. That doesn't mean they don't care what they look like and that doesn't mean that a lot of white collar workers don't wear safety shoes. I'm a software engineer. I will likely need safety shoes starting next month because I will have to walk through an area that requires them.
Here's about 500 choices I have.
Of course shoes aren't as important as health care. As I told Ikkarus, you get a gold star for pointing out that very astute point. The point of an analogy is to simplify a complex point. In this case both shoes and health care are necessary goods/services which the larger entity will pay for. In one scenario you have a choice, competition, and lowered prices. In another you have no choice.
Man, sometimes I can't even talk to you people.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment