SUV Carrying 27 Crashes With Semi, Killing 15

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rez Exelon

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
4,510
Location
Tulsa
A tragedy is personal. Unfortunately 27 is a statistic, which is exactly what those people now are. Data driven people are often quick to dismiss anecdotal stories, yet statistics are just anecdotal incidents which have been catalogued.

What happened to those 27 people (28 including the truck driver) doesn’t affect us in the slightest. It affects our public discourse though, which is what we’re here discussing. In that discussion you’re going to have those who think they deserved what happened, those who don’t and those who examine the totality of the situation, rather than the emotional aspect.

If you’re really as data driven as you say, you’d see that, which is why I mentioned soapboxes on either side of the bed. It’s really easy to see a discussion and choose the side not yet taken so as to cast shade on the other participants. That’s not devil’s advocacy, it’s sport.

Likewise it’s kind of a dick move to always demand citations and sources. Many of us are voracious consumers of information. We hoover it up from wherever and whenever we can get it. That doesn’t mean we all walk around with a cross-referenced index of writings and links to populate on your demand of “data driven, supported” evidence.

When I hit you with all those links in post #14, I was on a laptop and had very recently been examining the statistical spikes in illegal immigration, and who was saying what about it from a policy standpoint. If I’d been on a mobile device using data? You’d have gotten nothing. Not because I didn’t want to support my argument, but because ain’t nobody got time for that.

So sorry to say but a lot of times your questions do come off as aggressive and dickish. If you aren’t invested in the debate enough to go look it up yourself, then you’re asking others for answers that you don’t really value enough to be serious about them. That’s why you often switch to another line of questioning as soon as you get what you asked for. Whether your bias was preconceived against the information or you’re singularly focused on your position becomes irrelevant. People think “why did I bother?”.

I gave you 5 links to support my reasoning and you dismissed it out of hand, because all you seemed to care about was your question itself, not my answer. The answer was “it’s irrelevant” because my line of reasoning was about cause and effect, not grading the emotional quotient of tragedies on a sliding political scale. You didn’t catch that fact because you didn’t see what I was saying as important to the discussion. You appeared to be too busy being an ask-hole and I wasn’t down for that at the moment.

And that in a nutshell is why people often dismiss your interlocution as not worth their time. Simply changing your style of Q&A might yield more positive results. But that’s just me so... :)
I'll suggest that the burden of proof typically rests on the presenter, so yes, when presented with a claim I don't think it's crazy at all to ask for on point stuff to support that. Being a consumer of information doesn't in and of itself mean much if you can't ever share it. Like, if you found a study that disclaims something I've said, I only have your word on it unless you can show me what you saw because I might not be able to find it. If you saw something, hopefully you can find it since you know what you're looking for.

Even then, hopefully the links and information are relevant to the question at hand. I don't intend to dismiss your point that border crossings are going up, but I don't think that would have direct relevance to the topic here.

But yeah, the question of "why did I bother". That's why I don't answer bad-faith questions. I have, in the past, typed up detailed posts with my arguments, facts, figures, whatever but then usually immediately get met by a group I call "the usual suspects" that tend to levy personal attacks, make inferences about me being unemployed living with my parents and whatever other personal attacks that they are allowed to get away with. That more than anything makes me measure my arguments and thing "why did I bother". Then it just becomes more fun to poke them for the entertainment rather than the intellectual exercise.
 

Blue Heeler

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
3,232
Location
Oklahoma
I wholeheartedly agree. The loss of a friend or loved one is a tragedy to all involved, no matter where they're from, or what their affiliations may be.

Shame on us for trivializing such a horrible accident.

May they R.I.P.

Probably a fine line between "trivializing" and "apathy" when it comes to people dying while breaking our laws.
 

MacFromOK

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
14,761
Location
Southern Oklahoma
Just to make sure, I scanned through the previous 7 pages again.

Discounting the sidebars between Rez and three of us, we’ve covered pretty much everything from the tragedy of so many people being hurt or killed, the safety implications of an overloaded vehicle, the dangers of human trafficking and how poorly the political side of our country deals with it.

I think I see one post out of 78 that trivialized the situation, but ‘m not seeing things through your eyes so maybe I missed something?
Ok... perhaps I did?

I didn't do a count, but IMO it seemed like a majority of the posts referred more to the victims' legal status rather than their deaths. Actually included myself in that, and maybe it's disappointment in myself that prompted the last comments.

Perhaps @Blue Heeler said it best...
"Probably a fine line between "trivializing" and "apathy" when it comes to people dying while breaking our laws."

Best wishes to all.
:drunk2:
 

O4L

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Moderator Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
14,716
Reaction score
18,898
Location
Shawnee
How do you fit 27 into an SUV? It looked like an Expedition or Excursion.

An SUV believed to be carrying 27 people crashed Tuesday into a semitruck in Southern California, killing 15 people and leaving others injured, hospital officials said.

Judy Cruz, director of El Centro Regional Medical Center's emergency department, said 14 people died at the scene and another died after arriving at the hospital.

Officials believe there were 27 people in an SUV that struck a tractor-trailer full of gravel. Multiple patients were flown or transferred to hospitals for their injuries.

"The patients are, of course, going through a little bit of a difficult time, as you can imagine," said Dr. Adolphe Edward, the El Centro hospital's chief executive officer.

It was not immediately clear what caused the crash in the agricultural southeastern corner of California on a highway running through fields in the Holtville area, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) east of San Diego.

Officials from the Holtville and Imperial County fire departments, as well as the California Highway Patrol spokesperson for the area, could not immediately be reached.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/california-highway-accident-fatalities/2021/03/02/id/1012142/
Ok... perhaps I did?

I didn't do a count, but IMO it seemed like a majority of the posts referred more to the victims' legal status rather than their deaths. Actually included myself in that, and maybe it's disappointment in myself that prompted the last comments.

Perhaps @Blue Heeler said it best...
"Probably a fine line between "trivializing" and "apathy" when it comes to people dying while breaking our laws."

Best wishes to all.
:drunk2:
It could be because the OP's first sentence was asking a question that some of us were trying to answer.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,944
Reaction score
17,365
Location
Collinsville
I'll suggest that the burden of proof typically rests on the presenter, so yes, when presented with a claim I don't think it's crazy at all to ask for on point stuff to support that. Being a consumer of information doesn't in and of itself mean much if you can't ever share it. Like, if you found a study that disclaims something I've said, I only have your word on it unless you can show me what you saw because I might not be able to find it. If you saw something, hopefully you can find it since you know what you're looking for.

Even then, hopefully the links and information are relevant to the question at hand. I don't intend to dismiss your point that border crossings are going up, but I don't think that would have direct relevance to the topic here.

But yeah, the question of "why did I bother". That's why I don't answer bad-faith questions. I have, in the past, typed up detailed posts with my arguments, facts, figures, whatever but then usually immediately get met by a group I call "the usual suspects" that tend to levy personal attacks, make inferences about me being unemployed living with my parents and whatever other personal attacks that they are allowed to get away with. That more than anything makes me measure my arguments and thing "why did I bother". Then it just becomes more fun to poke them for the entertainment rather than the intellectual exercise.

It had a direct relevance to the event in question.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,944
Reaction score
17,365
Location
Collinsville
Ok... perhaps I did?

I didn't do a count, but IMO it seemed like a majority of the posts referred more to the victims' legal status rather than their deaths. Actually included myself in that, and maybe it's disappointment in myself that prompted the last comments.

Perhaps @Blue Heeler said it best...
"Probably a fine line between "trivializing" and "apathy" when it comes to people dying while breaking our laws."

Best wishes to all.
:drunk2:

All I know is that all my references to their legal status were meant to indict the system fostering that status, not the people themselves (except the coyote doing the human trafficking, and I don’t care if every one of them dies in a ditch somewhere).
 

El Pablo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
9,725
Location
Yukon
Every dollar spent
There is a legal process to enter the United States and become a citizen. If illegals ignore those laws, why should we think they wouldn't ignore others?

That's a rhetorical question btw...
:drunk2:
Around 50% enter legally via student or work visas, then don’t leave when their visa expires. The whole system really just sucks for everyone involved and I really have no idea how to fix it.
 

TerryMiller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
19,751
Reaction score
20,485
Location
Here, but occasionally There.
Around 50% enter legally via student or work visas, then don’t leave when their visa expires. The whole system really just sucks for everyone involved and I really have no idea how to fix it.

I always have to offer a question when someone speaks or writes that "X" number of illegals are actually visa overstays...

...So, if we have NO WAY of knowing just how many sneak across the border, how can we put ANY KIND of number on them. I'm pretty sure none of them are "checking in" somewhere so that we know the actual numbers.
 

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,501
Reaction score
5,632
Location
Kingfisher County
...

Real question here --- can you explain what the right is doing to fix the homelessness problem that the left isn't? I don't personally see either side of the spectrum doing what I think they can.

The right opposes raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage eliminates jobs that could possibly make the difference between living on the street or living in a house or apartment. Raising the minimum wage makes it easier for illegals to get a job that a proprietor can't afford to pay someone who is here legally.

That's 2 for you from the right that will lessen the incentive to come here illegally.

Woody
 
Last edited:

Rez Exelon

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
4,510
Location
Tulsa
The right opposes raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage eliminates jobs that could possibly make the difference between living on the street or living in a house or apartment. Raising the minimum wage makes it easier for illegals to get a job that a proprietor can't afford to pay someone who is here legally.

That's 2 for you from the right that will lessen the incentive to come here illegally.

Woody
So we're willing to screw our own out of a living wage as long as it screws the illegals? Why not just enforce existing laws on the books that prohibit employing the illegals? Isn't that a bit like the concept of passing new gun laws instead of enforcing existing ones?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom