Why is the jitney illegal?

[MaggieD]

Wow, you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore, do you?

Actually, from your posts, it would seem we're arguing about whether anecdotal evidence can substantiate an opinion. Sooo? Seems to me you're giving me anecdotal evidence that it can, even to you. You're just picky and choosey.

 

[phattonez]

Actually, from your posts, it would seem we're arguing about whether anecdotal evidence can substantiate an opinion. Sooo? Seems to me you're giving me anecdotal evidence that it can, even to you. You're just picky and choosey.

You're trying to start a religious argument because you have nothing left to defend your own arguments about the subject at hand.

 

[phattonez]

Regulators are driven to improve cab safety | Yebbo Communications Network

I just thought of this. How bad of a problem is bald tires anyway? All of the problems listed there, none of them seemed that important for safety. The only one I really had a problem with was the severe oil leaks, but it didn't say how many of those there were (and what exactly classifies as severe).

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I just thought of this. How bad of a problem is bald tires anyway? All of the problems listed there, none of them seemed that important for safety. The only one I really had a problem with was the severe oil leaks, but it didn't say how many of those there were (and what exactly classifies as severe).

Bald tires would be a huge issue in bad weather, either heavy rain or snow. Then you also have a greater chance of a blowout with such old tires at high speeds.

Now just think about something, the above are issues in a regulated industry, where spot inspections are possible. Which has overall seeming kept much of the industry rather safe. Do you not think that safey issues would rise in an unregulated industry

 

[MaggieD]

You're trying to start a religious argument because you have nothing left to defend your own arguments about the subject at hand.

Not at all. I gave you my opinion. Debated my opinion. You don't accept anecdotal evidence. Yet you obviously do when it's about some invisible guy in the sky. While you insist others post links, you post none of your own. I respect Caine's posts because it's quite obvious to me he has been in law enforcement. I don't ask him for links every time he turns around. I have explained that I have intimate knowledge of crooked Chicago suburban taxi drivers and taxi companies...certainly I've illustrated I know more than the Average Joe about them...I've told you my S.O. has been an owner/operator of a taxi service for one of these sorry operations for 8 years...yet you want me to substantiate my opinion that companies are fraudulent by links on the web.

I don't have to defend my arguments. And I don't have to play in your sandbox anymore. Your sandbox, on this issue is no fun at all.

 

[liblady]

ROFLMAO. What's your point? Believe it. Don't believe it. I was responding to the thread. Proof of fraud and misconduct is most often a collection of anecdotal evidence.

i would tend to believe, but why did your so stay there for years?

 

[phattonez]

Bald tires would be a huge issue in bad weather, either heavy rain or snow. Then you also have a greater chance of a blowout with such old tires at high speeds.

You're not really ever seeing any of those in Southern Caifornia.

Now just think about something, the above are issues in a regulated industry, where spot inspections are possible. Which has overall seeming kept much of the industry rather safe. Do you not think that safey issues would rise in an unregulated industry

I think people would be more demanding of safety themselves since they wouldn't assume that it's just taken care of.

 

[MaggieD]

i would tend to believe, but why did your so stay there for years?

Well, for one thing he was outside the corruption because he was an owner/operator. He paid $200/week for what they call Dispatching Service. The other thing is that, for the same reasons I think Tom's an angel walking, he doesn't like confrontation -- and he doesn't like change. He's blue collar thru-and-thru. Anchor Hocking went bankrupt. Cost him his glass-maker job. Ball Brothers closed their Chicago area plant and moved south. Cost him another glass-maker job. When OMC (Outboard Marine) went bankrupt, cost him his die-casting job. He was a lost soul. So he turned to taxi driving. Bought his own taxi within a couple of weeks...after the mechanic sabtaged his spare and right front tire because "the boss" yelled at the mechanic about the original leased cab Tom drove (the front seat floated...hahahaha!). And yelled at is too mild. He cut the guy a new one; Tom was mortified. Anyhow, because he bought his own cab, provided his own insurance, he was above the fray, and he justified it in his own mind...afraid of yet another change. Never justified it in mine, but one can't put too much pressure on angels. ;-)

He learned a great deal about that company, and others, in his eight years. That's where my information comes from. And thank you sincerely for asking.

 

[phattonez]

He learned a great deal about that company, and others, in his eight years. That's where my information comes from. And thank you sincerely for asking.

Lol, you're making way too big a deal out of this, as if I personally offended you. I just wanted real stats, not opinion. So what if you know a guy? I could just as easily find a guy that says opposite. Anecodtal evidence is not used in science for a reason.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

You're not really ever seeing any of those in Southern Caifornia.

Unlike popular belief, life exists outside Southern California. Some people do in fact live in area's with a lot of rain, and or snow

I think people would be more demanding of safety themselves since they wouldn't assume that it's just taken care of.

To a certain extent sure

But how much time can you or anyone else dedicate to ensuring the goods and services you use or buy are safe. If I had to throughly investigate how safe they were before I used any good or service my free time would be drastically reduced. Knowing the TV I just bought is very unlikely to catch fire and burn down my house because it had to meet a certain level of government standards saved me from doing an extensive search on how which tv's tend to catch fire.

Having some governmental regulations on industries is convenient(sp) for most people

 

[MaggieD]

Lol, you're making way too big a deal out of this, as if I personally offended you. I just wanted real stats, not opinion. So what if you know a guy? I could just as easily find a guy that says opposite. Anecodtal evidence is not used in science for a reason.

No, I don't think you're trying to offend me. You asked a question. I gave you insider knowledge. You discount anecdotal evidence. You say, "Anecdotal evidence is not used in science for a reason." I agree, with a caveat. However, your post is not scientific.

In science, the definition of anecdotal evidence is sometimes defined as "information that is not based on proven facts and careful study." Scientific fact often begins with the anecdotal observation. But again, your post does not call for scientific proof.

Anecdotal evidence is admissible in our courts. The weight it's given is based upon the credence the judge or jury gives to the person testifying. In fact, most criminal investigations begin with anecdotal evidence. Dismissing anecdotal evidence out of hand is wrong, imo. It's wrong in the opinion of the courts. It's wrong in science. It's wrong on every level.

We use anecdotal evidence every single day of our lives. In fact, you suggested we use it to find the right taxi company to use. "Ask around." And, in fact, you personally use it as 'evidence' on which to base your faith.

Just because information is subjective does not make it false. Just because information is anecdotal doesn't make it false.

Had your post said, "Scientifically prove to me that jitneys should be regulated," I wouldn't have responded. Had your post said, "Please provide statistics that jitneys should be regulated," I wouldn't have responded.

You just want to dismiss what you don't agree with. And that pisses me off. ;-)

 

[phattonez]

In science, the definition of anecdotal evidence is sometimes defined as "information that is not based on proven facts and careful study." Scientific fact often begins with the anecdotal observation. But again, your post does not call for scientific proof.

Sure, research begins with anecdotal evidence, then a study, then an experiment. However, you're skipping right past study and experiment (though this would be deduction with a field that you can't experiment), and just making a conclusion.

Anecdotal evidence is admissible in our courts. The weight it's given is based upon the credence the judge or jury gives to the person testifying. In fact, most criminal investigations begin with anecdotal evidence. Dismissing anecdotal evidence out of hand is wrong, imo. It's wrong in the opinion of the courts. It's wrong in science. It's wrong on every level.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm just not going to use anecdotal evidence as proof that you need regulation. In a murder case, anecdotal evidence is all there is. With what you're trying to prove though, you need much more that anecdotal evidence.

Just because information is subjective does not make it false. Just because information is anecdotal doesn't make it false.

Because it disagrees with logic and economic knowlege. I need more than anecdotal evidence to prove that wrong. Anecdotal evidence has a place, but this is not it.

Had your post said, "Scientifically prove to me that jitneys should be regulated," I wouldn't have responded. Had your post said, "Please provide statistics that jitneys should be regulated," I wouldn't have responded.

So instead we're tossing about opinions? That's kind of a worthless discussion.

You just want to dismiss what you don't agree with. And that pisses me off. ;-)

Because I want someone who's trying to go against economic knowledge to use something a little more robust than anecdotal evidence.

 

[MaggieD]

So instead we're tossing about opinions? That's kind of a worthless discussion.

Every single one of your posts on this thread is simply your opinion...not even backed by anecdotal experience. "This is what I think. Prove me wrong." Your methodology is absurd.