3 ms·

> A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things).

> A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things). ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay. That makes no sense and you basically admit I'm correct then go on and on about something else. > From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance. Once again, you aren't countering my argument in any way shape or form. You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay." > You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies You clearly don't understand what I've written at all and I'm going to stop here because its pretty clear you are attacking strawmen and patting yourself on the back for it for some bizarre reason.

simoncion 11y ago
> ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay. Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :) From the sound of it, it's you who's interested in forgoing proper background checks, and just blackballing everyone who's been convicted of a felony: > In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." Think through your statement: * You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country. * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.". * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable. If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. [0] Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people. > You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay." Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage. > You clearly don't understand what I've written at all... No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :) [0] But, frankly, the same level of scrutiny should be applied to everyone... you never know who's an antisocial scumbag that just hasn't been caught yet.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country. I literally said otherwise: > In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." Aka "We should continue to use background checks as prescribed by the locally democratically elected authority even tho they can fail in some scenarios." That isn't a statement on the accuracy of those background checks and only a complete idiot would come to that conclusion. > * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.". > Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. [Sarcasm] Its a specific discussion of people who are in positions of power. > * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable. 1) People who fail standard and normal background checks because of felonies when attempting to get a job that places them in a position of power. 2) You keep re-stating what I say to make it apply to a broader context than what I actually say which is simply arguing with a strawman, yet again. > If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. It is usual and standard to have a background check performed by fingerprinting to the standards of the city of Houston when engaging in services regulated by the city of Houston. Once again, you seem to argue against a strawman for no apparent reason. > Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage. That has nothing to do with what I said. > There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state. That was the argument. The context was in relation to Taxi companies. Yes, the insurance burden is shifted and you just agreed with it. Congratulations. > No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :) 1) You've admitted my argument that part of the cost savings is by shifting the some of the burden from Uber/Taxi company to drivers for insurance. 2) You admit I'm correct that they should use normal and customary background checks used by the local democratically elected authority. 3) You've basically agreed my argument is fundamentally sound and 100% correct. Or you are lying in your most recent post. 4) Your entire attack on my argument is from the angle of re-writing my argument to attack a strawman. > Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :) Actually, you did even in your most recent post. Given "proper" background checks in the context of skirting local regulations is determined by the locally democratically elected authority (the city of Houston) by arguing against that position, you literally said: > Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people. 1) You can't actually invalidate how Houston is handling this without accusing Uber of being racist, classist, and dramatically damage to felons who have reformed. 2) This is due to the main difference is the fact Houston wants people fingerprinted and Uber didn't comply. 3) You ignored the actual flaw in my argument (Houston would have cleared the driver I used as an example in their background check) to accuse me of being racist, classist, etc. Congratulations. I just proved it using standards of evidence you are. applauds

simoncion 11y ago

> ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay. Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :) From the sound of it, it's you who's interested in forgoing proper background checks, and just blackballing everyone who's been convicted of a felony: > In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." Think through your statement: * You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country. * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.". * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable. If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. [0] Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people. > You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay." Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage. > You clearly don't understand what I've written at all... No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :) [0] But, frankly, the same level of scrutiny should be applied to everyone... you never know who's an antisocial scumbag that just hasn't been caught yet.

fweespeech 11y ago
> You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country. I literally said otherwise: > In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." Aka "We should continue to use background checks as prescribed by the locally democratically elected authority even tho they can fail in some scenarios." That isn't a statement on the accuracy of those background checks and only a complete idiot would come to that conclusion. > * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.". > Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. [Sarcasm] Its a specific discussion of people who are in positions of power. > * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable. 1) People who fail standard and normal background checks because of felonies when attempting to get a job that places them in a position of power. 2) You keep re-stating what I say to make it apply to a broader context than what I actually say which is simply arguing with a strawman, yet again. > If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. It is usual and standard to have a background check performed by fingerprinting to the standards of the city of Houston when engaging in services regulated by the city of Houston. Once again, you seem to argue against a strawman for no apparent reason. > Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage. That has nothing to do with what I said. > There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state. That was the argument. The context was in relation to Taxi companies. Yes, the insurance burden is shifted and you just agreed with it. Congratulations. > No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :) 1) You've admitted my argument that part of the cost savings is by shifting the some of the burden from Uber/Taxi company to drivers for insurance. 2) You admit I'm correct that they should use normal and customary background checks used by the local democratically elected authority. 3) You've basically agreed my argument is fundamentally sound and 100% correct. Or you are lying in your most recent post. 4) Your entire attack on my argument is from the angle of re-writing my argument to attack a strawman. > Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :) Actually, you did even in your most recent post. Given "proper" background checks in the context of skirting local regulations is determined by the locally democratically elected authority (the city of Houston) by arguing against that position, you literally said: > Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people. 1) You can't actually invalidate how Houston is handling this without accusing Uber of being racist, classist, and dramatically damage to felons who have reformed. 2) This is due to the main difference is the fact Houston wants people fingerprinted and Uber didn't comply. 3) You ignored the actual flaw in my argument (Houston would have cleared the driver I used as an example in their background check) to accuse me of being racist, classist, etc. Congratulations. I just proved it using standards of evidence you are. applauds