3 ms·

You can't counter my train of logic by using the same points I used to support it, at least not without providing something more. Both "high risk" and "low risk

You can't counter my train of logic by using the same points I used to support it, at least not without providing something more. Both "high risk" and "low risk" behaviors are qualitatively the same; they create a risk. They only differ quantitatively in the amount. And while you have been running for several posts with the idea that a high risk behavior is a sure cause of an accident, most are also generally very unlikely to cause an accident in absolute terms (that's usually why people take such risks, after all), making them very low risk compared to actual intentional violence (the point of the poster you responded to). Drawing a line for legal/illegal risks just allows us to punish people for taking risks we don't want them to take. It is still meaningful to call it an accident to identify these qualitative similarities.

Retric 6y ago
That’s why I specifically said low levels of harm are acceptable. Your argument boils down to saying it’s ok to play Russian Roulette with unwilling people if their is X chambers in the gun, but not ok if their is X-1 chambers in the gun. I am saying it’s never ok to do so but there is a polite agreement where people ignore low levels of harm based on a host of factors. This is consistent with events that have already happened and events that have yet to happen. You can reasonably argue the risk was low for events that didn’t happen, as in the building was strong enough see it’s still standing. In that case speeding cameras should be legally different than a cop pulling someone over. The cop is stopping you from speeding, but the camera doesn’t. On the other hand if risk is inherently a harm then past or future harm is irrelevant. Which is how things treated, you can’t argue the outcome when you have put others at risk.

3 ms·

You can't counter my train of logic by using the same points I used to support it, at least not without providing something more. Both "high risk" and "low risk

by unishark 6y ago

Retric 6y ago
That’s why I specifically said low levels of harm are acceptable. Your argument boils down to saying it’s ok to play Russian Roulette with unwilling people if their is X chambers in the gun, but not ok if their is X-1 chambers in the gun. I am saying it’s never ok to do so but there is a polite agreement where people ignore low levels of harm based on a host of factors. This is consistent with events that have already happened and events that have yet to happen. You can reasonably argue the risk was low for events that didn’t happen, as in the building was strong enough see it’s still standing. In that case speeding cameras should be legally different than a cop pulling someone over. The cop is stopping you from speeding, but the camera doesn’t. On the other hand if risk is inherently a harm then past or future harm is irrelevant. Which is how things treated, you can’t argue the outcome when you have put others at risk.