4 ms·
I think you are deliberately emphasizing part of the op's post that wasn't meant to be the main point. They weren't commenting on the severity of the punishmen
by Rooster61 7y ago
I think you are deliberately emphasizing part of the op's post that wasn't meant to be the main point.
They weren't commenting on the severity of the punishment, but rather showing an example of a very old case where similar scrutiny was placed on poor workmanship making the builder culpable to negligence and the ensuing fallout of that negligence.
From HN guidelines:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- alangpierce 7y agoSorry, I wasn't meaning to dismiss the point wholesale, just saying to be cautious of an "appeal to authority"/"appeal to precedent" sort of argument, especially in this case. I do think the severity was at least part of pjmorris's point, and they called it out in their response to me.
- zaroth 7y agoIt’s not actually an appeal to authority. It’s stating the long historical precedent of building codes, and that there is a criminal component to knowingly violating a building code which leads to the death of an occupant.