3 ms·

I am not arguing cause. I'm arguing that the policy enabling an act enabled the act, and we therefore shouldn't be surprised when the act occurs. Are you surpr

I am not arguing cause. I'm arguing that the policy enabling an act enabled the act, and we therefore shouldn't be surprised when the act occurs. Are you surprised? Is that why you keep pulling this thread? To understand why you were surprised when you shouldn't be?

zahlman 1y ago
If you are not arguing cause, then you should not use the words "predictable consequence" in reference to a specific incident, because that is equivalent to arguing cause. I am surprised, because I don't understand what you think the words mean.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  A man argues that we don't need to salt roads in the winter. Argues it for years. Argues that nature takes care of roads and that actually it's important we leave them in their natural state. When people note that means people will die driving in icy road conditions, he declares that's the price you pay for natural roads and, anyway, it doesn't matter because most road fatalities are bad drivers anyway. He drives one winter, slides right off the road, his car wraps around a tree, and he dies. Did he cause his death? No. Conditions did. Conditions and some bad luck. Is his death a predictable consequence of the conditions, the conditions he argued were necessary to preserve? Yes. Do I feel sorry for him? It's hard for me, personally, to feel sorry for someone who got to drive on those icy roads he loved for so long before the dice rolled bad for him. But I've known too many, personally, who died on these roads, so my empathy on that specific topic is a bit burned out. It's reserved for those who advocate strongly that we could plow and salt these roads and then die anyway.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Is his death a predictable consequence "Predictable" requires: "could a reasonable person have held a high prior probability of that man, specifically, dying in this manner?" No. The definition of "consequence" is conflated. The motte is "the conditions increased the probability of the event". The bailey is something like "the event follows from the conditions due to moral law". For example, when people speak of "consequences" for a crime, they refer to punishment. If we reflect the analogy back onto the original case, we're talking about situation in which our anti-road-salt activist lived in a world where the roads were already not salted, and had no direct control over that policy and negligible impact on the minds of those who do. Further, his words should have made him no more likely to die than anyone else driving on the same road. Except for the fact that the road is supposed to be analogous to the shooter, who in reality had consciousness and a motive.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      Relatively speaking, he's an American, so yes. His prior is way higher than people in other countries. Moral law doesn't enter into it. That's really all I'm saying. > Lived in a world where Well, a country where. But sure; I catch your meaning. > and negligible impact on the minds of those who do Agree to disagree. The President of the United States broke the news of his death; he had the ear of politically powerful people in the US. > his words should have made him no more likely to die than anyone else driving on the same road Agreed. No likelier than any other American. But, that's way too damn likely. > Except for the fact that the road is supposed to be analogous to the shooter, who in reality had consciousness and a motive. Ah. Here's the issue. While every individual shooter has a motive (or not; my relative was shot by someone suffering a psychotic break), the system makes it more likely Americans will get shot than their neighbors in other countries. America, specifically, has a dangerous mix of too many guns and too much distress. That's not really disputable without just ignoring the statistics. And Kirk was fine with that. Well, fine enough to think the current balance of gun ownership was correct. Perhaps he advocated for better mental healthv support or more financial equality, to address the distress? I may have missed it. Never heard it if he did. It's not acceptable he was shot. But Kirk accepted that someone gets shot his whole public life. He argued, vociferously and frequently, that some people were just going to die and that was the price of freedom. Was he right?
    - vkou 1y ago
      Is a vocal anti-vaxxer dying from a 2% mortality disease, where a vaccine reduces it to 0.05% mortality a predictable consequence? Is someone standing on a rooftop during a thunderstorm, and getting struck a predictable consequence? Is inciting your country into going to war, and then being one of the small % of the population dying in that war a predictable consequence? I wouldn't put 'high probability' money on a <2% probability event, but I would not be surprised by it.
      - zahlman 1y ago
        > Is a vocal anti-vaxxer dying from a 2% mortality disease, where a vaccine reduces it to 0.05% mortality a predictable consequence? Is someone standing on a rooftop during a thunderstorm, and getting struck a predictable consequence? Is inciting your country into going to war, and then being one of the small % of the population dying in that war a predictable consequence? No, no, and no. I already explained this very clearly.

zahlman 1y ago

If you are not arguing cause, then you should not use the words "predictable consequence" in reference to a specific incident, because that is equivalent to arguing cause. I am surprised, because I don't understand what you think the words mean.

shadowgovt 1y ago
A man argues that we don't need to salt roads in the winter. Argues it for years. Argues that nature takes care of roads and that actually it's important we leave them in their natural state. When people note that means people will die driving in icy road conditions, he declares that's the price you pay for natural roads and, anyway, it doesn't matter because most road fatalities are bad drivers anyway. He drives one winter, slides right off the road, his car wraps around a tree, and he dies. Did he cause his death? No. Conditions did. Conditions and some bad luck. Is his death a predictable consequence of the conditions, the conditions he argued were necessary to preserve? Yes. Do I feel sorry for him? It's hard for me, personally, to feel sorry for someone who got to drive on those icy roads he loved for so long before the dice rolled bad for him. But I've known too many, personally, who died on these roads, so my empathy on that specific topic is a bit burned out. It's reserved for those who advocate strongly that we could plow and salt these roads and then die anyway.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Is his death a predictable consequence "Predictable" requires: "could a reasonable person have held a high prior probability of that man, specifically, dying in this manner?" No. The definition of "consequence" is conflated. The motte is "the conditions increased the probability of the event". The bailey is something like "the event follows from the conditions due to moral law". For example, when people speak of "consequences" for a crime, they refer to punishment. If we reflect the analogy back onto the original case, we're talking about situation in which our anti-road-salt activist lived in a world where the roads were already not salted, and had no direct control over that policy and negligible impact on the minds of those who do. Further, his words should have made him no more likely to die than anyone else driving on the same road. Except for the fact that the road is supposed to be analogous to the shooter, who in reality had consciousness and a motive.
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    Relatively speaking, he's an American, so yes. His prior is way higher than people in other countries. Moral law doesn't enter into it. That's really all I'm saying. > Lived in a world where Well, a country where. But sure; I catch your meaning. > and negligible impact on the minds of those who do Agree to disagree. The President of the United States broke the news of his death; he had the ear of politically powerful people in the US. > his words should have made him no more likely to die than anyone else driving on the same road Agreed. No likelier than any other American. But, that's way too damn likely. > Except for the fact that the road is supposed to be analogous to the shooter, who in reality had consciousness and a motive. Ah. Here's the issue. While every individual shooter has a motive (or not; my relative was shot by someone suffering a psychotic break), the system makes it more likely Americans will get shot than their neighbors in other countries. America, specifically, has a dangerous mix of too many guns and too much distress. That's not really disputable without just ignoring the statistics. And Kirk was fine with that. Well, fine enough to think the current balance of gun ownership was correct. Perhaps he advocated for better mental healthv support or more financial equality, to address the distress? I may have missed it. Never heard it if he did. It's not acceptable he was shot. But Kirk accepted that someone gets shot his whole public life. He argued, vociferously and frequently, that some people were just going to die and that was the price of freedom. Was he right?
  - vkou 1y ago
    Is a vocal anti-vaxxer dying from a 2% mortality disease, where a vaccine reduces it to 0.05% mortality a predictable consequence? Is someone standing on a rooftop during a thunderstorm, and getting struck a predictable consequence? Is inciting your country into going to war, and then being one of the small % of the population dying in that war a predictable consequence? I wouldn't put 'high probability' money on a <2% probability event, but I would not be surprised by it.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > Is a vocal anti-vaxxer dying from a 2% mortality disease, where a vaccine reduces it to 0.05% mortality a predictable consequence? Is someone standing on a rooftop during a thunderstorm, and getting struck a predictable consequence? Is inciting your country into going to war, and then being one of the small % of the population dying in that war a predictable consequence? No, no, and no. I already explained this very clearly.