St Maarten Airport Watching Tragedy

[bUU]

Yet, you're unwilling to entertain any opposing opinions yourself.;p

That's absolute nonsense: Just in the few messages above:

We don't have to agree about that.

That is an open question. Reasonable people disagree.

What do you think these words mean?

 

It is clear that the authorities will be weighing the opposing perspectives (represented by yours on one side and mine on the other), respecting both, and making a determination what to do in response based on their appraisal of the merits on both sides.

This comment I wrote is the epitome of entertaining opposing perspectives. What it seems you want is people with opposing perspectives capitulating to your perspective, not "entertaining" your opposing perspective.

 

I would rather have a mature and respectful sharing of opposing perspectives. How about you?

[Thorncroft]

That's absolute nonsense: Just in the few messages above:What do you think these words mean?

 

This comment I wrote is the epitome of entertaining opposing perspectives. What it seems you want is people with opposing perspectives capitulating to your perspective, not "entertaining" your opposing perspective.

 

I would rather have a mature and respectful sharing of opposing perspectives. How about you?

 

I'm not passionate about the issue. It's sad that someone died while just trying to have fun on vacation. I don't live there, so I don't have a dog in this fight. The island will have to decide what is best for them and I'm pretty sure that they don't care what I think about it either way. Personally I don't think that closing the beach is the answer. It's a major tourist draw. Maybe they'll just ban riding the fence. Maybe they'll remove the concrete median blocks from the roadway, as they're a major trip hazard and likely what caused this tourist's death. Maybe they'll install some sort of air foil system at the end of the runway that directs the jet blast up and over the beach. I don't have the answers. I do harbor resentment towards people who try to tell others what they can and can't do. If they don't like the activity, they can exercise their dissenting opinion by not participating.

 

Furthermore, your implication in the quote below is that if someone disagrees, they're unreasonable. Not exactly the picture of open mindedness that you claim.

 

Originally posted by bUU That is an open question. Reasonable people disagree.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Thorncroft

[firemanbobswife]

I haven't been to that specific beach but I know that there are other beaches on St. Maarten from personal experience. All anyone needs to know about the danger is contained within your own first-hand description. You have chosen a perspective of callousness toward the consequences that others may suffer from the danger as you, yourself, described it. Others will choose to see your own description of the danger differently from how you see it.

 

You're a fan of the beach. You are biased in favor of keeping it open. You haven't displayed any willingness to accept that others can have reasonable perspectives about it without being a rabid fan like you. I have a bit of advice: Next time something changes that you find to be an incomprehensible change, please consider that it may be because you are not adequately making room in your consideration for perspectives opposed to your own. Claiming that only fans of the beach, like you, can have a perspectives on the danger is just a nonsensical attempt to brow beat away opposing perspectives, which will leave you without any means of understanding half of what causes things to change around you.

 

They are aware of the "danger" and that's why all the signs are posted and people must step over a concrete divider to go up against the fence. I am so tired of the actions of a few ruining things for the people who follow the rules. It is not my responsibility to take care of everyone. I am responsible for me. If they choose to intentionally ignore the safety signs that's on them.

 

If people were dropping like flies left and right then I would be in total agreement. But the action of a few should not ruin it for everyone. Hundreds of thousands of people have gone without incident. More people will die in car wrecks within the time people take to read this than have been killed at Maho Beach. It's not that I am so against changing dangerous things, it's that I am against knee jerk reactions.

 

I brought up the fact that you haven't been there because it's easy to buy into the hysteria that visiting the beach will almost lead to certain death or dismemberment which clearly isn't the case. Just like when people think you can simply "fall" off a cruise ship which those people who have actually been on a cruise know is next to impossible. The people that believe that have never been.

 

Call me all kinds of names you want, doesn't change my opinion. You don't have to agree. I am open to change but only when it makes sense. This IMHO does not.

[bUU]

Maybe they'll just ban riding the fence. Maybe they'll remove the concrete median blocks from the roadway, as they're a major trip hazard and likely what caused this tourist's death.

Makes sense to me.

 

I do harbor resentment towards people who try to tell others what they can and can't do.

That's non-sequitur. The "telling" would be done by society through its government, a fundamental aspect of the progress of civilized society for the last 350 years. There are people who don't like government doing its job. I respect that. I disagree with it, but I respect it. I listen and understand their perspective, and yet still believe that the trend in civilization going back 350 years is in the right direction, and hope it continues rather than regresses. Time will tell, though.

[Organized Chaos]

If I could figure out how to get it on here, I would.

YouTube and post the link.

 

I'll ask again. Have you ever been there? I'm guessing not because of you had, you could understand more of where we are coming from. It's kind of like trying to give advice on a cruise line you have never sailed.

;) Thank you.

 

I haven't been to that specific beach but I know that there are other beaches on St. Maarten from personal experience. All anyone needs to know about the danger is contained within your own first-hand description. You have chosen a perspective of callousness toward the consequences that others may suffer from the danger as you, yourself, described it. Others will choose to see your own description of the danger differently from how you see it.

 

You're a fan of the beach. You are biased in favor of keeping it open. You haven't displayed any willingness to accept that others can have reasonable perspectives about it without being a rabid fan like you. I have a bit of advice: Next time something changes that you find to be an incomprehensible change, please consider that it may be because you are not adequately making room in your consideration for perspectives opposed to your own. Claiming that only fans of the beach, like you, can have a perspectives on the danger is just a nonsensical attempt to brow beat away opposing perspectives, which will leave you without any means of understanding half of what causes things to change around you.

An average of 2-3 deaths occur every year at the Grand Canyon due to falling over the edge. The dangers are quite obvious, don't you think? That's a much worse statistic than the St. Maarten beach. Should Grand Canyon Nat'l Park be closed? After all, there are plenty of other places to visit.

 

We were hiking in a state park last year that contains several sandstone canyons. There are signs everywhere that tell people to stay on the trail system and to warn people of areas that are off limits. While we were there, a teenager ignored those signs, walked to the edge of one of the canyons, and fell 60 feet. The next day he was still in critical condition. I don't know what happened to him after that. Should they close the park?

 

Let's not forget that laws and regulations, including those regarding public safety, are often very different in countries outside the U.S.

[ray98]

I would rather have a mature and respectful sharing of opposing perspectives rather than engaging in childish name-calling. Is that okay with you?

 

It isn't name calling....it is a description of one who makes it their mission to control other adults by limiting their choices away under the guise of something such as 'safety'.

[JimAOk1945]

It won't be long until the mod closes this thread. It's becoming very contentious.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Forums mobile app

[bUU]

It isn't name calling....it is a description of one who makes it their mission to control other adults by limiting their choices away under the guise of something such as 'safety'.

That seems to me to be a thin excuse for engaging in name-calling. It shows a lack of acknowledgement that reasonable people disagree with you about the nature of what we're talking about. It is assuredly not a "mission to control other adults" but rather to establish reasonable protections within a civilized society. It is reasonable to disagree about whether the measures being discussed are necessary but not reasonable to impose motivations on others that they have said clearly are not their motivations.

 

It won't be long until the mod closes this thread. It's becoming very contentious.

Despite repeated requests for folks to engaged in a mature, respective sharing of opposing views.

[Karysa]

It IS reasonably safe. Two people have died in like the last six years, in totally freak accidents, out of how many tens of thousands that visit each year? If you don't want to ride the fence, don't go. It's good to see that not every nation feels compelled to be a nanny state.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

Two deaths (fence surfing) at Maho? I must have missed the first one. When did that occur? I do remember a lady hitting the concrete barrier maybe 5 years ago now that sustained injury but this recent incident is the first fatality that I have heard about.

[tef43]

Today's Darwin Award goes to the woman who, despite numerous posted warnings, doesn't have the common sense not to stand behind an airplane that is taking off.

[bUU]

It is not my responsibility to take care of everyone.

No one is asking you to take person responsibility for others. All that is expected of you is to be a constructive member of society. I hear you clearly: You don't like how society has been changing over the last 350 years, toward a more consideration of other people and a greater focus on taking care of each other rather than climbing over others. Fair enough. Reasonable people disagree with you. That's the crux of the matter.

 

It's not that I am so against changing dangerous things, it's that I am against knee jerk reactions.

You mean like the ridiculously juvenile responses to an opposing perspective, as were directed at me this morning? :rolleyes:

 

If you want to talk about knee jerk reactions, consider this. Earlier, Thorncroft suggested some partial measures for addressing this risk, and then seemed driven by this bias you share to back-pedal from the idea of there being middle ground, expressing resentment toward any consideration of what other reasonable people may perceive as a good direction, and proceeded to direct a personal attack at me, claiming that because I claim that reasonable people disagree with each other that somehow that means that I'm claiming that people who disagree with me are unreasonable.

 

I brought up the fact that you haven't been there because it's easy to buy into the hysteria that visiting the beach will almost lead to certain death or dismemberment which clearly isn't the case.

You are my source. Your words. Your first hand experience. That alone is sufficient as foundation for my perspective. Blame yourself if you must, but I believe you accurately described the risk. I respected your description of the risk, and on that description alone I believe that it is rational to take some action.

 

You don't have to agree. I am open to change but only when it makes sense. This IMHO does not.

I've been saying all along that reasonable people can disagree about this. Let's see if you can maintain that tenor and perspective in discussing this and future matters, because the nasty things you've directed at me prior to this make me wonder. Edited July 15, 2017 by bUU

[Karysa]

I'll bet the pilot's get a lump in their throat every time people are there.

 

I spoke to a Pilot once that told me that SXM is his faviorite place to land. He basically said "where else do you get a greeting like that"!

[firemanbobswife]

No one is asking you to take person responsibility for others. All that is expected of you is to be a constructive member of society. I hear you clearly: You don't like how society has been changing over the last 350 years, toward a more consideration of other people and a greater focus on taking care of each other rather than climbing over others. Fair enough. Reasonable people disagree with you. That's the crux of the matter.

 

You mean like the ridiculously juvenile responses to an opposing perspective, as were directed at me this morning? :rolleyes:

 

Earlier, Thorncroft suggested some partial measures for this, and then seemed driven by this bias you share to back-pedal, expressing resentment toward the idea of any consideration of what other reasonable people may perceive as a good direct, and then proceeded to direct a personal attack at me, claiming that because I claim that reasonable people disagree with each other that somehow that means that I'm claiming that people who disagree with me are unreasonable, which seemed to me as an attempt to wash away the idea of there being middle ground. That seems more like a knee jerk reaction to me than anything else.

 

You are my source. Your words. Your first hand experience. That alone is sufficient as foundation for my perspective. Blame yourself if you must, but I believe you accurately described the risk. I respected your description of the risk, and on that description alone I believe that it is rational to take some action.

 

I've been saying all along that reasonable people can disagree about this. Let's see if you can maintain that tenor and perspective in discussing this and future matters, because the nasty things you've directed at me prior to this make me wonder.

 

 

As far as me getting an exfoliation by the sand I fail to see where I described it as anything remotely dangerous. Please tell me where I gave a description of something else.

 

Also saying I have personally attacked you or been nasty towards you on other threads repeatedly I have to call shenanigans. I may have corrected some wrong info, but honestly nothing sticks out in my mind. Care to provide examples? Just trying to see where I can make improvements in my online tone and demeanor.

[bUU]

I wonder how the pilot of the aircraft that caused this most recent death feels. There is no question that the pilot is fault-free, but I know if it were me, it would affect me for the rest of my life.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Karysa]

I wonder how the pilot of the aircraft that caused this most recent death feels. There is no question that the pilot is fault-free, but I know if it were me, it would affect me for the rest of my life.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

Good question. I haven't read all the news so I am just guessing that he did not witness this incident which I think would be far more traumatizing than hearing later that while you were doing your job a thrill seeker off the airport grounds died from the "jet blast" because of their own actions. Of course it's just a hunch as I have no idea.

[Thorncroft]

Two deaths (fence surfing) at Maho? I must have missed the first one. When did that occur? I do remember a lady hitting the concrete barrier maybe 5 years ago now that sustained injury but this recent incident is the first fatality that I have heard about.

 

Yeah, that was it. I misspoke, but glad to hear that it was only an injury and not fatal. Thank you for that. It cut the fatality statistic in half. :D

[Karysa]

Yeah, that was it. I misspoke, but glad to hear that it was only an injury and not fatal. Thank you for that. It cut the fatality statistic in half. :D

Indeed good news all around :)

[bUU]

Good question. I haven't read all the news so I am just guessing that he did not witness this incident which I think would be far more traumatizing than hearing later that while you were doing your job a thrill seeker off the airport grounds died from the "jet blast" because of their own actions. Of course it's just a hunch as I have no idea.

I'm not sure it is necessary the same thing, but a friend hit and killed someone who darted out into traffic on a busy street. She was found completely faultless. Witnesses testified that there was no way she could have done anything.

 

She says she never got passed it, but like you said, perhaps that's because she saw it happen.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Thorncroft]

If you want to talk about knee jerk reactions, consider this. Earlier, Thorncroft suggested some partial measures for addressing this risk, and then seemed driven by this bias you share to back-pedal from the idea of there being middle ground, expressing resentment toward any consideration of what other reasonable people may perceive as a good direction, and proceeded to direct a personal attack at me, claiming that because I claim that reasonable people disagree with each other that somehow that means that I'm claiming that people who disagree with me are unreasonable.

 

 

You considered that a personal attack? That was not an attack. That was a personal observation based on your very own choice of words. Your overbearing, self serving need to hold all opinions but your own in contempt is the real crux of the issue. You've tried your best to play the victim, ad naseum and insulted all others as being unreasonable and beneath consideration, . Such pompous snowflakery. Now that, Bubba, is an attack. ;p;p

[Karysa]

I'm not sure it is necessary the same thing, but a friend hit and killed someone who darted out into traffic on a busy street. She was found completely faultless. Witnesses testified that there was no way she could have done anything.

 

She says she never got passed it, but like you said, perhaps that's because she saw it happen.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

 

I do think seeing something likes this would be horrific and stick with you.

 

I also am thinking that if I was your friend I would be thinking of so many "what ifs". What if I stopped two seconds longer at that last stop sign, what if I had gone down King instead of Main today etc

 

Perhaps there are what ifs here but honestly to me I just see it as a mature adult making a very bad decision and the Pilot had absolutely no control over that.

 

Interesting discussion though.

[bUU]

You've tried your best to play the victim, ad naseum and insulted all others as being unreasonable and beneath consideration

No I haven't. I've been respectful and courteous, while maintaining my perspective with integrity. You seem to not like WHAT I'm posting. And now you've ratified the very thing you claimed you didn't do. Reasonable people disagree with each other. I simply cannot accept that in real life there so many people that have so much difficulty respecting others enough to acknowledge that.

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[ray98]

So one person dies who obviously had to land in a freak way when she fell over the decades at this attraction which seen hundreds of thousands of visitors. More people die daily from falling on sidewalks.

[Thorncroft]

No I haven't. I've been respectful and courteous, while maintaining my perspective with integrity. You seem to not like WHAT I'm posting. And now you've ratified the very thing you claimed you didn't do. Reasonable people disagree with each other. I simply cannot accept that in real life there so many people that have so much difficulty respecting others enough to acknowledge that.

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

Yes, you have played the victim. Now, I'm done arguing with you over an issue that neither of us can do anything about. I will not be sucked into your reality distortion field vortex. Good luck with your crusade.

[bUU]

Yes, you have played the victim.

I've been the victim of disrespect and attempts to drown out an opposing viewpoint. And despite that I haven't posted anything nasty about you. Who's playing the victim? Regardless, I appreciate you sharing your perspectives even if you won't appreciate mine.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[firemanbobswife]

I'm still waiting for my responses bUU. I've been through our histories and I've only made it back to mid May but I can't find any posts where I was mean or nasty to you. Maybe I'm overlooking them? So far all I can find is a whole lot of "We'll have to agree to disagree" or "Reasonable people" on various boards and threads from you and none of them between the two of us.

 

Anyway if I was rude I apologize. I only get snippy when I sense the same from someone else. Otherwise I'm a pretty chill person.