4 ms·
I don't know, I saw this same argument in the gun community. Stop calling them accidental discharges, call them negligent discharges. Both they and you make g
by axaxs 6y ago
I don't know, I saw this same argument in the gun community. Stop calling them accidental discharges, call them negligent discharges. Both they and you make good points as to why.
But, then what does the meaning of accident become? With this line of thinking, nothing is an accident, everything has a cause and potentially a prevention. So once nothing is an accident, then we can start using the word accident again? I mean, most car crashes are unintentional(as are injuries at factories, and gun discharges) so why are they not accidents? Or are you arguing for the word and concept of accident to not exist at all?
- jschwartzi 6y agoI think the argument is that so much of safety and risk is about whether a risk is acceptable or not. If you work in a foundry you may run a very real risk of being burned by hot metal. But the question is whether a pedestrian simply walking past the foundry should bear the same risk should there be an incident. What makes a risk "acceptable," in other words? And it strikes me that much of that depends on the individual experiencing the hazard, the nature of the hazard itself, as well as the risk of an incident involving the hazard.
- solidsnack9000 6y agoAn accident is a harm that wasn't intended. It might be negligent, it might be due to a mechanical failure. There are different levels of culpability in those cases; but neither is as culpable as intentional harm. Sometimes being more specific about causation is important; sometimes being more specific about culpability is important.