|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: |
Incidents happen in other countries with a stronger safety culture - Yes, they do. However, I would counter that incidents in those countries happen despite stronger safety regulations (no one has claimed that a zero accident rate is possible), while a number of avoidable incidents in Korea have happened because of a lack of safety regulations.
|
No, I don't think its that simple. For example, with Korea's much maligned traffic accidents rate, Korea has essentially the same regulations and rules of the road. The issue is a lack of enforcement. However there are some practices in which Korea does have stricter standards and at least approaches a stricter enforcement procedure in part. In cases where the laws aren't as strict in western countries, are the accidents of that nature then to blame on a lack of safety culture? Are they because or, rather than in spite of? Or what about violent crime towards strangers, in particular gang assaults, armed or strong arm robbery, carjacking, drug overdoses, and gun crime. Aren't those an element of safety? Since these problems are more prevalent in the west, is this because of a lack of safety culture or in spite of? And is Korea having a lower rate or in spite of?
That's the danger of the culture argument. It tends to be very arbitrary, and there seems to be a strong tendency of those making the culture argument to apply exceptions or favorable terminology to their own culture, but but generalities and harsher words towards those not their own.
| Quote: |
| Just because safety issues are not exclusive to Korean culture doesn't mean there isn't an issue with that aspect of Korean culture. Different cultures can have similar traits - in the end, though, only Korea itself can be responsible for fixing safety issues in Korea. This is why bringing other countries/cultures into the debate is often irrelevant. |
Just because the problem happens in Korea, doesn't mean its a cultural issue. If we were looking at issues with traffic accidents in America, would we start looking at American culture? No, we'd look at traffic codes, police involvement, and so on. We might say youth culture or binge drinking culture, but we wouldn't say American culture. But the second you drop one of us off in Korea or Egypt or Peru, suddenly those issues all seem to get turned into a national culture argument.
The reason you bring cultures into the argument is to test the validity of whether or not something is happening because of culture. If its happening regularly in other countries, then the idea that its due to national culture becomes highly suspect. The logic for using a cultural argument shouldn't be, "I'm in a foreign country, therefore anything the people do here is because of culture." But that seems to be in essence what many of these cultural arguments are. Also, many of the people who make the cultural argument strongly suggest or outright state that such things either do not happen at all back home or are exceedingly rare. If this is what they think, and what they think is not true, then its a fair point to bring it up.
| Quote: |
| Did these actions take place because of an individual's actions and choices? Possibly, but wouldn't an individual's actions and choices be influenced (at least in part) by culture? |
And again, why are these actions in Korea because of culture, but the actions of someone back home are the actions of an individual? What is the objective criteria that can prove and verify this? Yes, an individual might be motivated by culture, but he might be motivated a lot more by things that aren't related to culture.
| Quote: |
| Actually, that's not the reason why. The reason why is that registered fishing vessels receive subsidized fuel (i.e. tax free) while water taxis do not. Thus, a lot of vessels in that size range are registered as fishing vessels even though many of them do not operate as fishing vessels or at least operate in a dual role. So, when one of them sinks - it's listed as a fishing vessel because that's what it is registered as but not necessarily what it was doing when it sank. So, now you have a system in place where a large number of vessels are operating in a capacity they are not registered/licensed for. |
No, I'm pretty sure its because they operate in calmer waters and closer to shore.
If a vessel was operating as a water taxi, but reclassified itself as a fishing vessel to get a fuel subsidy, it would still be carrying on the duties of a water taxi. Ferrying people close to shore, often across rivers or lakes. Thus, it would be operating in conditions far different from a marine fishing vessel that is going out into seas or oceans.
| Quote: |
So, I would determine if culture were partly responsible by looking for trends. Threads and themes that continue to surface.
To that end, I (and others) have already summed up why we feel that some aspects of Korean culture are responsible either for an accident happening (Sewol) or higher than necessary death tolls.
|
Trends are not a substitute for determining the specific cause of an accident or crime. There is a trend in drug shootings in the inner city. Some might even say a culture of drug related gang crime. That doesn't mean you just assume that someone who was shot in the inner city and had a crack pipe was killed because of drugs. You don't just say, the cause of death was inner city culture.
And again, I go back to the airline example. Western airlines and Korean airlines had similar incidents involving copilots who refused to speak up and override the pilot or their superiors and this led to fatal accidents. One was blamed on bad crew resource management, the other was blamed on Korean culture. Frankly speaking, if the circumstances of the incident are so similar as to be virtually identical, shouldn't it follow that its either A) Because of bad crew resource management in both cases or B)Because of western/American/Canadian culture and Korean culture in both cases? Or maybe C) Its because of pilot culture or hierarchical culture.
The problem is that where is the cutoff? Essentially, the culture argument doesn't just get applied to a few cases, it starts to get applied to EVERY case, from the most mundane to the catastrophic. It essentially becomes that EVERY accident in Korea is because of culture. Of course this should be patently absurd on its face. Shouldn't there at least be an X number of accidents in Korea that AREN'T because of culture? What number is that? How do you know which accidents to apply it to?
| Quote: |
So, I would point to instances where the Korean government has vowed change - and then didn't.
You could point to other countries that have solved similar problems, and therefore exist as a working model of a solution, but were ignored/not consulted by Korea. |
What problems would those be? The lack of people drowning because they weren't wearing lifejackets? That's been "solved"? Airline accidents due to pilot error? DUIs? Traffic accidents?
And as FOX pointed out, expecting instantaneous and comprehensive change is utterly unrealistic. Even after the development of crew resource management, western airlines still suffered from those failures and in fact continue to experience those failures. And again, this is why we bring up those other countries- People are under the mistaken impression that the problem has been "solved" back home. It hasn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
I'll ask then - did you take care in replying to me? You argued about the phone call and delay, and how it's not "only Korean"... yet I never once said that. I even asked you to quote me where I said it - and keep in mind, it was ME who brought that phone call point numerous times into this thread. Hell, I even brought news links... yet you made a straw man about "only Korean", and dismissed the news links.
So honestly, I feel you didn't take any care when replying to my post... simply wanted to argue. And if you don't take care and consideration in your posting, why the F should others? |
First, here was my reply- "The point I'm trying to make is that, the guy lying about where he was 1)Had minimal impact as the guy called back after thinking it over and 2)That lying to the authorities about your whereabouts isn't a Korean only thing. It's really common. I mean, we don't know how the full details of who this guy was and why he decided to cover it up, or how the call went down. The guy might not have appreciated the severity of the situation. (Say if the guy had been sleeping or was drinking and he gets a random call out of the blue asking him if he is on a boat) Regardless, he did change his mind and call back relatively quickly. In either event, 20 minutes was pretty minimal and you do have to verify that indeed the boat is in distress and not just suffering a simple radio failure or non-dangerous mechanical issue."
Now, as you can see, first I said "The point I (emphasis I) was trying to make was... I didn't say the point YOU were trying to make. I am addressing the point I was generally making as I was going on with not only you, but several other posters as well. Additionally, the first point I made was about the minimal impact the guy's actions had. I am replying to you, but at the same time I'm also trying to address the myriad number of posters out there who are disagreeing with me and raising issues like culture. I also have to balance the wall of text vs. the wall of quotes vs. 2-3 posts in a row. I probably made a mistake there. I should have been more clear. It is on me to make my points clear. Yes, you personally did not claim or state those things which I raised. You never said it only happens in Korea.
| Quote: |
| Hell, I even brought news links... yet you made a straw man about "only Korean", and dismissed the news links. |
Again, I'm having to deal with both you and a bunch other posters, many of whom are raising cultural concerns. I'm trying to get answers to everyone.
Anyways, regarding the news article- I think there are a couple problems with it. First, it might be that the Coast Guard, perhaps understandably so, is worried about getting blamed for this so they are trying to get ahead of the story by blaming the guy. Second, the point I have made that given the timeframe of the search and rescue, it appears extremely unlikely that the delay caused by this individual had any impact on whether people lived or died. In essence, it is a strawman itself. You can certainly look at the incident discuss whether it reflects a Korean culture of lying, but I don't think you can apply it as being a cause of death in this incident. I think its even questionable whether it points to a serious (rather than minor) disregard for safety as we don't know the nature of the call or the individual's state of mind at the time. If for example he was asleep at the time, even the best of us might give unclear or just "shut up and leave me alone" answers if we are woken up by a random call and are still foggy. Its clear that at some point the individual changed his mind and called back. Obviously he didn't have a total disregard for safety. He did after all, have to fess up to having previously lied and chose to do so within a pretty short period of time.
Out of everything that happened with this incident, the guy lying and the passenger manifest are the two biggest irrelevancies when it comes to why people died.
| Quote: |
| o honestly, I feel you didn't take any care when replying to my post... simply wanted to argue. And if you don't take care and consideration in your posting, why the F should others? |
I do love to argue, but I always try to take each person's post seriously. Even ol atwood, I would always consider what he had to say and would look at what his point was first. I don't spend post after post critiquing poster's posting habits or their history. I try to stick to the issue at hand. How many posts do I make that are strictly an attack on an individual poster? Look at this thread. Look at the number of posts that are ONLY talking about me, not even the accident. Are there any posts I made in this thread that are ONLY talking about other posters? But I do take posts seriously and carefully consider what someone has to say.
Anyways, I try to seriously look at what you are bringing to the table and address it seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
(Firing off a quick one, I'll get to the meat of Fuzzy's big post later)
|
wrong forum.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smithington
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
(Firing off a quick one, I'll get to the meat of Fuzzy's big post later)
|
wrong forum.... |
Man, I laughed out loud at that.
Very good, indeed.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fuzzy_Dunlop
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
No, I don't think its that simple. For example, with Korea's much maligned traffic accidents rate, Korea has essentially the same regulations and rules of the road. The issue is a lack of enforcement. However there are some practices in which Korea does have stricter standards and at least approaches a stricter enforcement procedure in part. In cases where the laws aren't as strict in western countries, are the accidents of that nature then to blame on a lack of safety culture? Are they because or, rather than in spite of? Or what about violent crime towards strangers, in particular gang assaults, armed or strong arm robbery, carjacking, drug overdoses, and gun crime. Aren't those an element of safety? Since these problems are more prevalent in the west, is this because of a lack of safety culture or in spite of? And is Korea having a lower rate or in spite of? |
1. And what is the reason for lack of enforcement? "You" have a serious problem (consistently...year after year after year), you make a law, then you DECIDE not to enforce it. Obviously, this is not a priority for you. Maybe the law was for appearances?
2. Accidents happen for a variety of reasons - sometimes cultural, and sometimes for cultural reasons in countries that are not Korea. And sometimes, in Korea, an accident and its results have nothing to do with culture.
3. Crime vs. safety? You better warm up before you make that stretch or you're going to pull something.
| Steelrails wrote: |
Just because the problem happens in Korea, doesn't mean its a cultural issue. |
I didn't say it was a cultural issue because simply because it happened in Korea (strawman...fallacious).
I said it was a cultural issue because despite a pattern of incidents, and despite having the chance and ability to do something about those incidents, Korea has chosen either not to do anything, or not to enforce existing legislation. We also seem to have not seen groundswell people's movements, such as MADD, in the US. Well, we do - when it is against American beef imports, or American bases, or American whatever....but a groundswell campaign for traffic safety?
Even that Anti-English spectrum guy got invited to visit lawmakers considering the redrafting of E2 visa regulations (though what his actual influence was is unknown).
| Steelrails wrote: |
| If we were looking at issues with traffic accidents in America, would we start looking at American culture? |
I might, especially if some sort of trend emerged. I might look to today's spoiled American youth, the influence of movies such as "Fast and Furious" for influencing street racing, latchkey parents not instilling the concept on consequences in their children - sure that could also be a factor in accidents among young drivers.
The anti-helmet law debate would be another case where, in some parts of American culture, the notion of "freedom" is considered more important than safety.
To that end, the gun debate would also be a good example of a culture of "freedom" trumping public safety. So, there are several examples of lives being lost due to cultural factors in the United States. None of those examples proves nor disproves, validates nor invalidates, excuses nor solves, safety issues in Korea.
So, I would have to argue irrelevance here. Another fallacious premise. Yup...America has problems. That doesn't mean Korea doesn't have problems.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| And again, why are these actions in Korea because of culture, but the actions of someone back home are the actions of an individual? |
I would say the actions of individuals back home are also influenced in large part by the culture they're from. Again, a strawman. I never said all decisions in Korea are culturally based while decisions in other countries are not are not. Sorry. Fallacious premise again.
I do partly blame some aspects of Korean culture for their poor safety record. I have done so because their record for safety is among the worst in the OECD (for motor vehicle safety, for example)
| Steelrails wrote: |
| No, I'm pretty sure its because they operate in calmer waters and closer to shore.If a vessel was operating as a water taxi, but reclassified itself as a fishing vessel to get a fuel subsidy, it would still be carrying on the duties of a water taxi. Ferrying people close to shore, often across rivers or lakes. Thus, it would be operating in conditions far different from a marine fishing vessel that is going out into seas or oceans. |
Once again, I would love to hear your about your experiences about being a pax or crew on one of these vessels so that we can see how they compare to mine.
Water taxis go out into seas and oceans - that's where the islands are. But, the more salient point is this - you have a fleet of vessels carrying out operations that they are not licensed for in order to receive cheaper fuel. The practice is widespread, and it is pretty much ignored (or was prior to Sewol - can't say for sure now).
Does the practice of licensing your vessel for something you're not going to do so that you can get cheaper fuel sound like a culture of safety to you? Does having the authorities in charge turn a blind eye to the practice of having a maritime vessel routinely carry out duties it is not licensed for sound like a culture of safety to you? Does it sound like the choice of an individual, or does it sound kind of systemic?
By the way...close to shore has nothing to do with it. Rough water is rough water.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Trends are not a substitute for determining the specific cause of an accident or crime. There is a trend in drug shootings in the inner city. Some might even say a culture of drug related gang crime. That doesn't mean you just assume that someone who was shot in the inner city and had a crack pipe was killed because of drugs. You don't just say, the cause of death was inner city culture. |
How a culture deals with those trends would say something about that culture, would it not?
| Steelrails wrote: |
| And again, I go back to the airline example. Western airlines and Korean airlines had similar incidents involving copilots who refused to speak up and override the pilot or their superiors and this led to fatal accidents. One was blamed on bad crew resource management, the other was blamed on Korean culture. Frankly speaking, if the circumstances of the incident are so similar as to be virtually identical, shouldn't it follow that its either A) Because of bad crew resource management in both cases or B)Because of western/American/Canadian culture and Korean culture in both cases? Or maybe C) Its because of pilot culture or hierarchical culture. |
I'd love to know how you know exactly what was going on in each pilots' head as he or she considered whether or not to speak up to their captain.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| The problem is that where is the cutoff? Essentially, the culture argument doesn't just get applied to a few cases, it starts to get applied to EVERY case, |
That's certainly a problem in qualitative research of this type, I can't argue with that. I would argue though that difficulty in finding the cutoff doesn't invalidate the data you do collect.
I would also reject your premise that it gets applied to EVERY case. There may be some on this board who do that, or some who use every incident as a "Ha ha. Told you so" moment, but I haven't. And I don't think anyone in this thread has.
Not every traffic accident in Korea is a result of culture. However, consistently ranking at, or near, the top of traffic accident fatalities in the OECD tells us something is going on.
| Steelrails wrote: |
What problems would those be? The lack of people drowning because they weren't wearing lifejackets? That's been "solved"? Airline accidents due to pilot error? DUIs? Traffic accidents?
And as FOX pointed out, expecting instantaneous and comprehensive change is utterly unrealistic. Even after the development of crew resource management, western airlines still suffered from those failures and in fact continue to experience those failures. And again, this is why we bring up those other countries- People are under the mistaken impression that the problem has been "solved" back home. It hasn't. |
This one is fair. "Solved" was a very poor word choice on my part. Perhaps "mitigated" would have been a better choice. However, I don't think one poor word choice invalidates the argument that Korean culture plays a part in it's poor safety record. Even some Koreans agree with this.
And...wait for it...I have not (nor has anyone else so far as I recall) argued for instantaneous and comprehensive change. However, how many decades do you have spend at or near the top of your peer group in terms of traffic accident fatalities before you make a change - especially when the data is in on one workable solution (seatbelts)? America is not the only model for seatbelts by the way... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fuzzy_Dunlop
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Smithington wrote: |
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
(Firing off a quick one, I'll get to the meat of Fuzzy's big post later)
|
wrong forum.... |
Man, I laughed out loud at that.
Very good, indeed.
|
It was pretty good...even if the implication makes me want to take a shower... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
I do love to argue, but I always try to take each person's post seriously... But I do take posts seriously and carefully consider what someone has to say... Anyways, I try to seriously look at what you are bringing to the table and address it seriously. |
Meanwhile thinking... "If I repeat a word enough times, maybe people will believe me..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re: seatbelts (& almost totally irrelevant to the arguments above but just for fun):
I'm living in a place that has zero concept of seatbelts. Young kids hang out car windows, babies sit on laps, folks commonly ride in the back of pickups. Kind of reminds me of my childhood in Canada. Pleasant memories, actually.
Granted, most cars here are junkers with few working accessories & the rough roads slow drivers down. Posted speed limits are 15mph in town & 25 between villages.
But it does get a bit dangerous after dark on weekends when older teens take to drinking & driving fast & the cops are frequently drunk themselves. Then everyone else just keeps an extra eye over their shoulder.
Ah, simpler times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for your reply, SR.
I fear though that this is probably the most important part, and perhaps where my frustration with you stems from.
| Steelrails wrote: |
I do love to argue, but |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorpion
Joined: 15 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
(Firing off a quick one, I'll get to the meat of Fuzzy's big post later)
|
wrong forum.... |
Man, either SR meant to make a funny or that's the most hilarious Freudian slip in the history of this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GENO123
Joined: 28 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Choose your poison.
American has problems with guns and crime
Korea has problems with safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scorpion wrote: |
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
(Firing off a quick one, I'll get to the meat of Fuzzy's big post later)
|
wrong forum.... |
Man, either SR meant to make a funny or that's the most hilarious Freudian slip in the history of this forum. |
Hilarious. If he meant it or not, the choice of words is comic gold. And yes, I do believe it is the funniest post in the history of this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ite Korea consistently ranking near or at the top of traffic accident fatalities for many years, it was only this year that it was finally made mandatory for rear-seat passengers in a car to wear a seatbelt. Why did it take so long? And why do you even need to have a high traffic fatality rate to act? What were they thinking - "I'm not convinced on this seatbelt thing. Let's try it for the front passengers first"? The data exists from what has happened in other countries - you are more likely to survive a car accident if you are buckled up. Period. Korea finally got around to legislating that everyone in the car be buckled this year - in 2015! Why the delay? |
yeah, why the delay? Because apologists and defenders don't really care about Korean lives. What really matters is not letting "outsiders" criticize this place... |
So "apologists" and "defenders" are responsible for Korean legislature now? Do you really believe that the handful of defenders on this board (or others) are responsible for Korean laws being passed or not being passed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schwa wrote: |
Re: seatbelts (& almost totally irrelevant to the arguments above but just for fun):
I'm living in a place that has zero concept of seatbelts. Young kids hang out car windows, babies sit on laps, folks commonly ride in the back of pickups. Kind of reminds me of my childhood in Canada. Pleasant memories, actually.
|
I hear ya. Back in the mid-80s, while still a teenager, I worked as a dishwasher for a glorified greasy spoon in Edmonton. On my last day, they wanted to haul a garbage bin to the local car wash for a cleaning, so they had me sit in the trunk of a car and pull the thing behind me. Obviosuly, no seat belts were involved.
I thought it was a hoot, and even my parents, upon finding out about it, were only midlly chagrined. In those days, there really wasn't the kind of attention paid to safety in the west that you see now, and most people, if they're honest, could probably tell you similar stories. So Korea right now is probably not much different from what many of us will have living memories of.
(And really, what I did with the garbage bin isn't much less safe than riding your bike on the street minus a helmet, which was the norm in those days.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
3DR
Joined: 24 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
Re: seatbelts (& almost totally irrelevant to the arguments above but just for fun):
I'm living in a place that has zero concept of seatbelts. Young kids hang out car windows, babies sit on laps, folks commonly ride in the back of pickups. Kind of reminds me of my childhood in Canada. Pleasant memories, actually.
|
I hear ya. Back in the mid-80s, while still a teenager, I worked as a dishwasher for a glorified greasy spoon in Edmonton. On my last day, they wanted to haul a garbage bin to the local car wash for a cleaning, so they had me sit in the trunk of a car and pull the thing behind me. Obviosuly, no seat belts were involved.
I thought it was a hoot, and even my parents, upon finding out about it, were only midlly chagrined. In those days, there really wasn't the kind of attention paid to safety in the west that you see now, and most people, if they're honest, could probably tell you similar stories. So Korea right now is probably not much different from what many of us will have living memories of.
(And really, what I did with the garbage bin isn't much less safe than riding your bike on the street minus a helmet, which was the norm in those days.) |
Lol yeah I remember when I was about 9 or 10, my dad had a Ford Taurus station wagon and then picked up my friends and I and we rode in the back on the highway WITH THE HATCHBACK OPEN.
It was fun at the time, but when I got older I realized that yeah, one of us could've easily just rolled out the back onto the highway and died. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
