Here in the Midwest, where meth labs in storage units are not unheard-of, the cops in many jurisdictions keep a close eye on self-store; they don’t have to see “the stuff” being carried in because meth labs stink, and merely walking through the complex (or exercising the department’s canine there) can give them enough probable cause for a warrant. Out come the bolt cutters, and the next stop is the security tapes. Your face on the hallway camera looks really good on the courtroom projector.
I think you missed my point about the maids (or I worded it poorly). Some “shake-and-bake” meth recipes take only a few hours to cook; the maid is far more likely to walk in on the lab leftovers in the abandoned room than the cooking in progress. The property damage and the costs of the environmental cleanup are still there.
Similarly, if somebody has keys to your garage, they need only wait until you are gone for the day. So what if you see the wreckage that evening?
That is, in context of a straw man (and in a bit of a red herring), he’s trying to use logic against you in a way you can’t falsify, as if that’s proof that his position is valid.
[QUOTE=Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate]
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument.
This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not. If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate, even if there exist other arguments (not presented by the proposing team) that could have supported the case successfully. Moreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same point; this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument. For further commentary on burdens of proof, see argumentum ad ignorantiam, above.
[/QUOTE]
If you are concerned about the risks of storing some random’s shit in your garage, you should be extremely concerned about the risk of doing without renter’s insurance. Both could cost you everything you own in the world, but the latter is a much more immediate threat. It’s cheap, too - like $300 a year (and potentially much less.)
You don’t sound nearly as “helpless female, boo hoo” as you did in the OP. So while I still think your relationship has issues, they aren’t the same issues I thought they were at first. I guess that’ll teach me.
Roddy
Yes, but she hasn’t yet told you yet about, I don’t know, maybe a Furry thing going on and her husband’s take on it. Unless you’re saying that you know that.
It is not disordered thinking to plan for risks. What is disordered thinking is to overemphasize the most unlikely risks and then get so upset about these highly unlikely events that it negatively affects your marriage. Washing your hands before dinner is sensible and hygenic, washing them 20 times a day is a sign of disordered thinking. It is all a matter of degree.
You said your first example of something going wrong you thought of was a dead body. Storing a dead body in a stranger’s garage is literally insane and is about as likely as having an airplane fall on you. Drugs and guns are not as improbable but still vanishingly unlikely. The more likely problems of insects or default seem to be post hoc justifications, not what you were actually upset about at first.
In most arguments what is upsetting is not what is actually said but rather the meta messages. In this case by comparing your concerns to aliens the meta message you felt was, “you are a hysterical woman whose concerns don’t matter and you should be ridiculed” The meta message he received by you objecting with the hypothetical of guns and drugs is “you are a thoughtless and impulsive person who is incompentent and incapable of protecting me”
Thus finding out the exact percentage of self storage parks that contain meth labs is immaterial until you both address the meta message so you can feel heard and not dismissed and he can feel capable and rational. I have participated in risk anaylsis at work and we have had disagreements and they have not devolved into crying and accusations, this is because the meta messages do not happen like they do in a relationship. The DBT stuff is a good resource about how to communicate without hurt feelings and there is plenty of other good stuff out there. You sound like you are getting better at communicating with you husband, good luck.
I agree with you that the meta messages are the source of emotional distress on both sides. I think you described that in an accurate and concise way, useful for my analysis of the situation. Thank you.
I know tons of people who rent in L.A. and I have never heard anyone talk about renter’s insurance. I always figured it wasn’t worth it since the most valuable thing we own (aside from our cars, which are of course already insured) is a Mac Book Pro of my husband’s that’s already a few years old. Is this really a standard thing people do?
I most certainly do. If you combine it with your auto insurance, it’s almost free in some cases- you get a “multi-policy” discount on both. I think mine works out to $5 a month. I have had one claim, for $2000, and that has paid for many decades of coverage.
My apt flooded due to a bad leak in the roof- lost my bed, many books, clothes, etc and yes my computer. Damage was maybe $3-4K, but I have a great agent who said If I submitted a claim for just under $2500 he’d just write a check for $2000 ($500 deductible) and all i had to do is submit him $2500 of receipts-which with a new computer, new mattress etc, was pretty easy.
So, you should check it out. See if they have those multi-policy discounts and how much minimum coverage would actually cost you.
Most renters policies also indemnify you against claims or law suits if a visitor trips on your rug or is bitten by your dog or if you accidentally pour hot coffee on them. One insurance agent explained that the ‘accidentally’ part is required for everyone over the age of six. A child under six doesn’t have to say ‘oops’ to be covered.
What happens if someone pays you to hold something one month, then refuses to pay you for the next? Do you have the right to move it, sell it, dump it? What happens if what was stored there gets damaged or “gets” missing? What if what is stored there is illegal, noxious, or dangerous? What if the stuff causes damage to your garage? Does he have access to his stuff at two or three in the morning without your consent and permission? Can he lock you out of the garage completely?
Yes, but he ain’t a visitor, he’s a business client. And he ain’t a renter in the sense that this isn’t a (legal)living space, renter’s insurance doesn’t cover it.