Gavin,
Thanks for the lengthy response, but please, CALM DOWN. I never diss'ed you! I never told you that you were wrong, and I certainly never told you that you can't speak your mind.
I did say the following:
...if you disagree with the principle then we are done here because you have such a warped sense of responsibility and protecting people that the debate need not continue.
; and I still believe that.
A very common dispute resolution tactic is to restate the fundamental aspects of the argument as a generalization. It helps to remove the bias from each side of the debate. I have restated the fundamental facts at play as a generalization, and seek input on agreement or disagreement with the generalization. I agree with the generalization. If you or Caymen disagree then we haven't much left to talk about because we will be in fundamental disagreement. In other words, we will have restated the basis of the debate in terms that we both agree to, but for which we have differing opinions. When that happens we are at am impasse.
That's why SEVERAL TIMES I have stated the generalized principle, and neither you, nor Caymen has stated whether or NOT you agree with it.
I have stated my position, you and Caymen haven’t yours.
So, I will ask again:
When those that have positions of responsibility are LAX in their duties AND people are injured or die because of a chain of events that would not have occurred if the responsible parties performed their duties are the responsible parties partly to BLAME for the resulting injuries or deaths?
That’s the fundamental principle, you either agree, or not: YES, or NO?
I never once personally attacked you. You seemed to need an explanation and a generalization so I offered one. The generalization and explanation seemed rational and of common sense to me, thus my bewilderment. Don’t let that bewilderment on my part seem like an insult…it wasn’t. I never called you names. I never said you didn't have common sense. I said "it really can't be argued", because I believe my generalization to be sound and without debate...seemingly so sound you still haven't weighed in on it...
And as for our legal system, yes it is screwed up, but law is all about precedent and precedents are of most use when they can be generalized to the facts; not opinions, not specifics of the parties involved, but simply the facts. The facts in this particular case are that there are people that are responsible for safeguarding others, it has been brought into question if they have upheld their duties, and people were injured or killed in part, potentially, because of their dereliction of duty. Those are the facts presented for discussion (and if assumed true for a moment) then the debate is should those that were remiss in their duties share in the blame.
So, answer the question... Do you agree with the general principle: YES, or NO.
PS and BTW, Gavin, you were the first person to draw any type of "blood" by saying this about R Shek's post: "This is about the stupidest statement I have read in a long time."
I found that pretty offensive, so much so, I had to understand it.
What R Shek stated was rational, unopinionated and in no way controversial and as he himself said if the general discussion was about some other party (say police, or firefighters, or judges, or you name it), then I doubt you would have the same opinion. The ONLY way you could see or say otherwise is if you fundamentally disagree with the general principle I have stated...and so far, you haven't said you do.
Please answer the question. Thanks!
TJR
