Dan
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by Dan on Oct 26, 2011 14:00:09 GMT -5
Sunrise times indicate the point at which the disk of the sun first appears over the line of the horizon. It indicates the start of this process, not the end, so it takes about an hour for it to get fully light. Sunset times indicate the point at which the disk of the sun has fully dipped below the horizon line, so it indicates the end of this process. In which case, it starts to get dark about an hour before. Technically, the exact time of sunrise and sunset is indeed the moment that the top of the sun's disk touches the horizon, but the time is takes for the sun to cross the horizon is just a few minutes. You can do the maths if you like: the Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour, and the sun's disk subtends an angle of 0.5 degrees. So it appears to move across the sky at 30 times its diameter per hour, or one disk-width in two minutes. It's a little longer at high latitudes because it's moving diagonally across the horizon, so divide the two minutes by the cosine of your latitude. In addition, twilight is the period when the sky is not fully dark while the sun is fully below the horizon. Its exact definition depends whether you're talking about civil, nautical or astronomical twilight, but the criterion is that the sun is below the horizon by less than a certain angle. At high latitudes in the summer, twilight can last all night. But once the sun is up, it's day time. The amount of light then depends mostly on the weather. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 28, 2011 3:36:19 GMT -5
If everyone went to bed at the exact same time as they normally did on Saturday night before we gain an hour, yes some people will have restless leg syndrome, rashes, etc. but this number would not be any lesser or greater than any other day of the year. I am using the research that Vene cited (that I'm sure he thoroughly read before posting, including the article that requires a $31.50 subscription to read and the study that shows absolutely no spike in accidents on DST Sunday in the spring when averaged with Standard-Time Sunday in the fall) to support the argument against Daylight Saving Time, which specifically mentions the phenomena of people staying out later and drinking more during Standard Time Sunday in the fall. The factors you enumerate are outside of people's control and can occur on any day of the year. On the other hand, this factor is entirely within people's control.
A straw man is when someone, in a debate, deliberately crafts a distorted version of an argument and debates that distorted version rather than the actual argument.
If Dragon Zachski is arguing that:
1. The variable needlessly introduced on DST-Sunday (the one night we lose an hour) creates a rise in accidents in comparison to days with no such needlessly introduced variables.
2. An increase in accidents on any given calendar day due to a needlessly introduced variable is not acceptable.
3. The preferred policy to eliminate the increase in accidents is to remove the variable.
What exactly am I distorting? I am only asking why this line of reasoning would not extend to other days with other needlessly introduced variables, such as Halloween. I am not actually saying that Dragon is against trick-or-treating and then spending my time arguing the merits and demerits of the activity. If anything, it is a slippery slope fallacy, although you would have to show how the line of thinking does not logically follow (For example, "Same-sex marriage would lead to bestial marriages!" does not follow logically because animals cannot enter into legal agreements.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 28, 2011 15:05:23 GMT -5
Jesus, I don't know, maybe shit like "you're suggesting we all bend to a tiny minority who are irresponsible" or "you're saying there will be a mini-apocalypse complete with planes falling out of the sky, people scratching out their eyes, & robots taking over the world."
Nope. No blatantly ridiculous hyperbole or strawmen here. And don't even give me that crap "it was a joke" line, we all know you were trying to make Oriet look like a raving lunatic. Also this:
Here's a tip, since you seem to have trouble with this concept, just because your views on something have never been challenged before, it doesn't mean they're right & the new idea is crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 31, 2011 2:53:13 GMT -5
I fully admit it was a ridiculous hyperbole and never meant it to come off as anything but.
My issue is that Oriet's reaction to the perceived problem, in my opinion, far exceeded a rational response in proportion to its scope. She was acting like people are dying left and right from Daylight Saving Time when it's simply not true. A slight increase in accidents yes, but, as I said fully controllable by irresponsible people. The argument that safety always trumps enjoyment is indicative of the black-and-white thinking that often pervades this board. The two are not mutually exclusive: (either you're safe, or you can enjoy yourself, but you can't be both at the same time) but rather two factors in which we must strike an appropriate balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 31, 2011 3:13:41 GMT -5
Do you just use big words to make yourself sound smarter then you actually are or do you understand what it is you're saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 31, 2011 3:15:57 GMT -5
What "big words" are you talking about?? "Scope"? "Indicative"? "The"?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 31, 2011 3:28:16 GMT -5
More on the last one.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Oct 31, 2011 12:05:19 GMT -5
I hate DST. I always feel sick for a week after the spring time change, no matter how early I go to bed or how late I get up.
|
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Oct 31, 2011 12:17:42 GMT -5
I don't like DST, but maybe there is a point of it being too dark in the wintertime morning. Maybe companies could just have employees come to work one hour later during the wintertime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 31, 2011 14:27:34 GMT -5
That's kind of ironic.
No, she wasn't, she's just saying there is a statistically significant increase of deaths & accidents, over something stupid & easily changed.
Except, you know, the last few times you said that you totally got your foot shoved down your throat with a side of your own word salad.
What? Why would you consider enjoyment anywhere near as important as your life & quality thereof? Even most extreme sports junkies make damn sure they have good safety equipment.
Also, their activities generally don't affect anyone else, whereas DST affects everyone. And I don't see how "society" gets to decide these things for the dissenters, if they're not engaging in criminal activity.
It's not as though it has to be an Extinction Level Event to be wrong, you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 2, 2011 2:57:03 GMT -5
Yes, they take reasonable precautions to ensure their safety, just like people on the Saturday night before we gain an hour in the fall could take reasonable precautions like not using the extra hour to stay out later and party more (and thus everything would average out, making the accident nonsense moot).
It's called "majority rules." Unless you can show that one has a constitutional right to be spared the ravages of Daylight Saving Time, then that's how it works. If a majority of people do not mind accepting a slightly elevated risk in return for longer daylight evenings, then they have a right to make that choice.
But nor does it even come close to approaching the level of hysteria that some people are giving it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 2, 2011 3:04:41 GMT -5
*facepalms*
Where.
is.
your.
DATA.
The side you are opposing has provided definitive data that proves that Daylight Savings Time has caused harm.
What data have you provided? None. Zero. Zilch.
Start providing definitive facts that prove that Daylight Savings Times' benefit outweighs its harm. If you cannot, then it does indeed cause more harm than good and should be abolished.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 2, 2011 3:23:05 GMT -5
I am telling you that if we want to accept a slightly elevated risk in exchange for personal enjoyment then that is our right, and is a perfectly legitimate choice.
For the millionth time, the "harm" caused by Daylight Saving Time is actually caused by people behaving irresponsibly. The question is: do we abolish something we enjoy doing because there are a few morons who do stupid things that skew the average number of accidents?
There is no "data" because the benefit is entirely subjective. Daylight Saving Time shifts the extra sunlight we gain in the summer from the useless early morning hours to the much more enjoyable and useful evening hours. That is what it does. There is no graph saying that DST causes an increase in fuzzy bunnies raining down from rainbows because it is not something that creates tangible benefits that can be measured with numbers.
I cannot definitively argue that the enjoyment gained from DST outweighs the slight increase in accidents because it is entirely subjective. If you believe that it isn't worth it, then there is nothing I can say to definitively "prove" otherwise. The question then becomes, if a majority of people enjoy DST and are willing to accept the slight risk that comes from it due to irresponsible actions, should they be forced to change because of these few people who choose to act irresponsibly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 2, 2011 3:45:09 GMT -5
So, in other words, you have no data.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 2, 2011 3:45:50 GMT -5
In other words, you're missing the point.
|
|
