From: Ed Chilada on
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:04:56 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:50:41 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:36:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:39:21 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:39:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:33:09 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:26:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:55 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
>>>>>>>> same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
>>>>>>>> danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
>>>>>>>> and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
>>>>>>>> before anyone comes to harm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Setting fire to someone's house is obviously going to hurt someone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
>>>>>> homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
>>>>>> Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
>>>>>> park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
>>>>>> intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
>>>>>> disfigures a child and then punish him?
>>>>>
>>>>> The children shouldn't be standing so close.
>>>>
>>>> They aren't*. So stop dodging the question. So do you intervene to
>>>> prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child
>>>> and then punish him?
>>>
>>> Life's no fun without danger.
>>
>> Make your own danger if you wish, don't inflict it on others.
>
>You're expecting me to put a stranger's life above my own.

No I'm not. In what way do you think I am doing so?


> How absurd.

Your suggestion is, certainly.



>> Anyway,
>> you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
>> clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
>> punish him?
>
>I would only intervene in a certainty, not a slight danger.

How do you ascertain that something is a certainty before it happens?
And of course this will come down to what you consider a slight
danger. Naivety and inexperience will lead you to not properly judging
the level of danger. Pretty much everyone that has a fault crash
didn't realise the danger they were in/causing. Of course, they don't
realise that before the crash, only afterwards, usually with great
regret.


>>>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>>>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>
>>> Experience is the best form of education.
>>
>> Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
>> other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
>> or death.
>>
>> So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
>> away, or punish them when they get hit?
>
>Think how many would learn from the others' mistake when they're too close!

This is a public park, the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, the
bloke is too close to them. So I'll ask once again:

Do you think someone should intervene and get them to move away, or
punish them when they get hit?



>>>>>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't think of one.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>>>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>>>
>>> If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
>>
>> No.
>
>Why not?

<facepalm>

Do you *really* need help answering these sorts of questions?



>> So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
>> rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
>> that should apply to the story I referred to?
>
>Some people might keep those kind of dogs safely locked up, why prevent them too?

Do you honestly think that the people in this story didn't think their
dog was safely locked up? Do you think they foresaw that this might
happen and chose to ignore it? Do you think the best outcome from this
scenario is that:

(a) The kid is killed and the uncle is subsequently punished for
manslaughter.

(b) The uncle is fined for keeping a dangerous animal and has it taken
away. The kid is fine and unharmed.


Have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention rather
than retrospective punishment makes sense?
From: Peter Hucker on
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:40:01 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:04:56 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:50:41 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:36:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:39:21 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:39:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:33:09 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
>>>>>>> homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
>>>>>>> Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
>>>>>>> park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
>>>>>>> intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
>>>>>>> disfigures a child and then punish him?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The children shouldn't be standing so close.
>>>>>
>>>>> They aren't*. So stop dodging the question. So do you intervene to
>>>>> prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child
>>>>> and then punish him?
>>>>
>>>> Life's no fun without danger.
>>>
>>> Make your own danger if you wish, don't inflict it on others.
>>
>> You're expecting me to put a stranger's life above my own.
>
> No I'm not. In what way do you think I am doing so?

Because you told me to endanger myself rather than others.

>>> Anyway,
>>> you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
>>> clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
>>> punish him?
>>
>> I would only intervene in a certainty, not a slight danger.
>
> How do you ascertain that something is a certainty before it happens?
> And of course this will come down to what you consider a slight
> danger. Naivety and inexperience will lead you to not properly judging
> the level of danger. Pretty much everyone that has a fault crash
> didn't realise the danger they were in/causing. Of course, they don't
> realise that before the crash, only afterwards, usually with great
> regret.

You have to draw a line somewhere. Simply driving a car is risky.

>>>>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>>>>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>>
>>>> Experience is the best form of education.
>>>
>>> Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
>>> other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
>>> or death.
>>>
>>> So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
>>> away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>
>> Think how many would learn from the others' mistake when they're too close!
>
> This is a public park, the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, the
> bloke is too close to them. So I'll ask once again:
>
> Do you think someone should intervene and get them to move away, or
> punish them when they get hit?

If the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, what's the problem?

>>>>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't think of one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>>>>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>>>>
>>>> If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> <facepalm>
>
> Do you *really* need help answering these sorts of questions?

Yes. You seem to be treating a dog as unimportant.

>>> So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
>>> rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
>>> that should apply to the story I referred to?
>>
>> Some people might keep those kind of dogs safely locked up, why prevent them too?
>
> Do you honestly think that the people in this story didn't think their
> dog was safely locked up?

In most cases where attacks occur, people have not.

> Do you think they foresaw that this might
> happen and chose to ignore it? Do you think the best outcome from this
> scenario is that:
>
> (a) The kid is killed and the uncle is subsequently punished for
> manslaughter.
>
> (b) The uncle is fined for keeping a dangerous animal and has it taken
> away. The kid is fine and unharmed.

(c) The uncle is warned of the dangers.

--
I'm 2615th worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Join here: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm 81st in protein research systems alpha testing.
And 118th in extreme weather event research.

http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.petersphotos.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
A conscience just costs you money.
From: Ed Chilada on
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:33:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:40:01 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:04:56 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:50:41 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:36:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:39:21 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:39:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:33:09 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
>>>>>>>> homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
>>>>>>>> Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
>>>>>>>> park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
>>>>>>>> intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
>>>>>>>> disfigures a child and then punish him?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The children shouldn't be standing so close.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They aren't*. So stop dodging the question. So do you intervene to
>>>>>> prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child
>>>>>> and then punish him?
>>>>>
>>>>> Life's no fun without danger.
>>>>
>>>> Make your own danger if you wish, don't inflict it on others.
>>>
>>> You're expecting me to put a stranger's life above my own.
>>
>> No I'm not. In what way do you think I am doing so?
>
>Because you told me to endanger myself rather than others.

I told you not to endanger others. Whether you choose to endanger
yourself is entirely up to you.



>>>> Anyway,
>>>> you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
>>>> clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
>>>> punish him?
>>>
>>> I would only intervene in a certainty, not a slight danger.
>>
>> How do you ascertain that something is a certainty before it happens?
>> And of course this will come down to what you consider a slight
>> danger. Naivety and inexperience will lead you to not properly judging
>> the level of danger. Pretty much everyone that has a fault crash
>> didn't realise the danger they were in/causing. Of course, they don't
>> realise that before the crash, only afterwards, usually with great
>> regret.
>
>You have to draw a line somewhere. Simply driving a car is risky.

Driving a car in a sensible, mature and patient manner isn't actually
that risky. People do it for decades without any major incident.
However, some idiot boy racers kill themselves after mere months of
having a driving licence. They make it risky for themselves, but no
doubt that's in the pursuit of "fun".



>>>>>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>>>>>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Experience is the best form of education.
>>>>
>>>> Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
>>>> other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
>>>> or death.
>>>>
>>>> So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
>>>> away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>>
>>> Think how many would learn from the others' mistake when they're too close!
>>
>> This is a public park, the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, the
>> bloke is too close to them. So I'll ask once again:
>>
>> Do you think someone should intervene and get them to move away, or
>> punish them when they get hit?
>
>If the kids aren't too close to the fireworks, what's the problem?

Oh how you struggle to avoid the question!

This is a public park, the kids aren't too close to the fireworks as
such, the bloke is too close to them and is causing them a danger.
So I'll ask once again:

Do you think someone should intervene and get them to move away, or
punish them when they get hit?



>>>>>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>>>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't think of one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>>>>>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> <facepalm>
>>
>> Do you *really* need help answering these sorts of questions?
>
>Yes. You seem to be treating a dog as unimportant.

Compared to a human life, it is.



>>>> So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
>>>> rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
>>>> that should apply to the story I referred to?
>>>
>>> Some people might keep those kind of dogs safely locked up, why prevent them too?
>>
>> Do you honestly think that the people in this story didn't think their
>> dog was safely locked up?
>
>In most cases where attacks occur, people have not.

Indeed they have not, but they *think* they have, because there's a
breed of people who know best, they're always right. No-one needs to
tell them how to secure their dog or which dogs are just too dangerous
to have around children. No-one needs to tell them how to climb a
ladder..



>> Do you think they foresaw that this might
>> happen and chose to ignore it? Do you think the best outcome from this
>> scenario is that:
>>
>> (a) The kid is killed and the uncle is subsequently punished for
>> manslaughter.
>>
>> (b) The uncle is fined for keeping a dangerous animal and has it taken
>> away. The kid is fine and unharmed.
>
>(c) The uncle is warned of the dangers.

The uncle is probably already aware of the dangers, or at least
believes he is. The uncle would probably react to subsequent warnings
in the same way you would. So let's say that (c) has occurred, it
still brings us back round to the same two options. Which do you think
is the best outcome?


(a) The kid is killed and the uncle is subsequently punished for
manslaughter.

(b) The uncle is fined for keeping a dangerous animal and has it taken
away. The kid is fine and unharmed.