Rugoz wrote:So if some nobleman can rape and murder your wife with impunity it doesn't matter as long as you can burn your garbage in the front lawn? I'd call that postmodern decadence.
I don't think nobles should be legally permitted to rape and murder with impunity, nor would I defend such. Lets not pursue absurdity for its own sake in characterizing the arguments of others. Besides, you just childishly mimicked the already straw-man argument of PoD. Congrats, you repeated a fallacy in an even less creative and amusing way. At least you are winning a race to the bottom.
Pants-of-dog wrote: Since it is anecdotal and unsupported, it is therefore inadmissible hogwash, as you put it.
Glad we agree.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not discussing sills.
I am discussing lintels. Lintels are part of framing. Sills are not. Lintels hold up loads. Sills just need to stay straight enough to ably support the flashing and other window joints elements, in order to avoid infiltration.
Lintels should be double or triple framed as regulations and local climate conditions dictate.
I was not merely speaking of sills either, I was speaking of the framing around windows, including the header and the sills, and even the king-studs. When you are on the job, and you tell a guy to go frame the window, this is known by him and you to include the construction of the sills and it is done during the framing part of the job.
Headers are typically double-framed, and I think they should be, but
requiring them to be triple framed, or sandwiched with OSB, is not necessary, double framing has been generally sufficient. House collapses because of window-framing not being triple-framed is so rare, that the fluke failure of a window-frame that was done in a manner sufficient for 30+ years with next-to-no deaths, is not an adequate reason to redo the whole code to make everything more expensive and complex. Even one moron building his own poorly so that is collapse on himself is not a good enough reason to require everyone to follow unnecessary codes, this falls under the bad apple analogy. You do not let a bad apple spoil the whole batch, you set aside that instance as non-applicable in code considerations (in my opinion).
Likewise, double-framing the sills, which like I showed from the contractors forum, is usually unnecessary (and triple framing them is almost absolutely unnecessary), but some inspectors are now requiring it, that is dumb. You know it, and I know it.
Examples could be multiplied.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So it is unnecessary and intrusive because you feel that way, and because you lived in a house where it was grandfathered.
And regulations do not require you to update them, unless you are doing renovations there anyway.
Its intrusive because homes that are grandfathered are, by nature-of-the-definition, sufficiently safe under the old ways.
Plus, I never denied that you were not required to update them unless renovations were being done. I believed we discussed this already.
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are vastly oversimplifying risk here.
Each regulation has a different risk assessment involving a different set of variables. You cannot simply say they must be all risky or all not.
Let us look at lintels again. Lintel structure in Canada depends on snyow load. And you do not take the average snow load. You take the load for 100 year storms. This creates a safety margin, because 99% of all storms in the areas will not have enough snow load to matter. And this safety margin is one of the reasons you can grandfather things.
It is actually more complicated than this, with forensic engineers looking at collapsed buildings, and recreating the event in lab conditions, and compiling statistics, and analysing different materials, and doing a zillion other things that requires a certain level of science.
I don't see how all of this shows that I oversimplified risk. I have acknowledged exceptional categories of direct fire concern, etc., but my point is, if an old form is safe for occupancy, then it is safe to duplicate in new construction. This varies by region, but the principle remains constant. An safe-to-occupy old home in the Tundra, is safe-to-duplicate in new construction. That is the point. Yes, home structures are regionally relative, but are universal in the general principle of what constitutes safe-to-live in.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Really? In Canada, heavy timber framing is explicitly dealt with in the National Building Code. Better fire rating that steel.
We use glue laminated timbers for atriums in low rise buildings all the time, because it is so pretty.
In some places in the U.S. you cannot build a timber-frame home without hiring, and getting the structure inspected and certified, by a licensed engineer. Though some states don't care at all, it varies. In the end though, I think building shelter on one's own property is a human right.
Also, I do not think there is a superior form of wood-framing than that of mortise-and-tenon timber-frames. They are indeed gorgeous as well. Something else we can agree on.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that the state enforces them does not magically make them more intrusive than other laws also enforced by the state.
And if the codes were only written by tradespeople, you would be ignoring many groups of industry stakeholders, including fire prevention officers, the end users, and municipal authorities in charge of infrastructure.
I never said or claimed any of this. I was merely defending the point that regulations can rightly be said to originate from the state via elected bodies even if the content of the code in the regulation originated in the private sector.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, the difference is that you do not like these, but you like the other ones.
If it is just about your feelings, fine. I hope you understand why I will simply move on.
As for your edit:
You seem to be arguing that the micromanagement of having 42” guardrails is more intrusive than serdom.
I don't see how any of my clarifying examples could be construed to imply you conclusions here. Its baffling.
Decky wrote:You could also be burned for being a witch.
Anyway, only the "patriotic" right could look back at a time when 5 year olds were having to work rather than getting an eduction and a chance at a decent life and see something better. You people really do detest your countrymen.
I do not have a problem burning witches, which if they are truly witches, are the minions of Satan himself who murder, conspire against the church and state, sow heresy, insight rebellion and socially decadent ideas like feminism, promote childlessness, and offer abortions and contraceptives, as well as become complicit in adultery and other forms of wickedness.
I think the education of one's children, beyond the very basic elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic, is the sole right and prerogative of the parents. Likewise, just because a five year old waits tables at the family pub, does not mean they are not being simultaneously educated in latin and logic when homeschooled. That does not follow at all.