[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

NASA's contract with Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for the solid rocket boosters, included a clause stating that in the event of a failure leading to "loss of life or mission," Thiokol would forfeit $10 million of its incentive fee and formally accept legal liability for the failure. After the Challenger accident, Thiokol agreed to "voluntarily accept" the monetary penalty in exchange for not being forced to accept liability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report

You just proved my point. It wasn't criminal. It was an accident. The article itself calls it an accident. They forced that company to face monetary liability, not criminal action.

You're basically advocating that the truck driver be fined.[/quote]

No. No. And, No.

'Criminal' and 'accident' have nothing to do with each other.

The point we have been trying to make, over and over, is "accidents are not preventable", by definition. The company did not face crimial action, because the company did nothing criminal. No one in the event did, what they did was negligent. They had a duty to the crew of Challenger to heed Engineering specifications that the Oxygen tank seal would shrink in the cold, and so the shuttle should never launch below a certain air temperature or risk dumping liquid oxygen all over the place.

And, again, I am advocating that the driver chose to drive distracted, a condition that he could have prevented, therefore it was not an 'accident'.

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

He plead guilty to running a stop sign because he did. Accidentally.

Were you dropped on your head as a child, or are you intentionally being difficult?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

He plead guilty to running a stop sign because he did. Accidentally.

Were you *accidentally* dropped on your head as a child, or are you intentionally being difficult?

Inquiring minds want to know!

FTFY

[Prof_Chomsky]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. No. And, No.

'Criminal' and 'accident' have nothing to do with each other.

The point we have been trying to make, over and over, is "accidents are not preventable", by definition. The company did not face crimial action, because the company did nothing criminal. No one in the event did, what they did was negligent. They had a duty to the crew of Challenger to heed Engineering specifications that the Oxygen tank seal would shrink in the cold, and so the shuttle should never launch below a certain air temperature or risk dumping liquid oxygen all over the place.

And, again, I am advocating that the driver chose to drive distracted, a condition that he could have prevented, therefore it was not an 'accident'.

You're making up definitions again.
Show me a dictionary, anywhere, where it says "In order to be called an accident, it must be unpreventable".

You've invented that definition in your head.

Now, here are some actual dictionary definitions and examples of how to use the word "accident" and it's various forms properly:

accident noun [ C ] (INJURY)
​
an event not intended by anyone but which has the result of injuring someone or damaging something.

accidental
adjective US ​ /ˌæk·səˈdent·əl/

The fire began shortly after 1:30 a.m. and appears to have been accidental.

accidentally
adverb US ​ /ˌæk·səˈdent·əl·i/

He accidentally left the water running and flooded a bathroom floor in the hotel.



What is the common theme? Accidents lack intent. They're not unpreventable. The guy could have easily turned the water off in the hotel and avoided the flood, but he accidentally left it on.

Now stop arguing with the official language. Maybe it would be convenient for you to redefine a lot of words, but that isn't how it works.

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

What is the common theme? Accidents lack intent. They're not unpreventable.
Now stop arguing with the official language. Maybe it would be convenient for you to redefine a lot of words, but that isn't how it works.

That is exactly how safety training works. You are confusing 'prevent', and 'intend', with 'avoid'. You may not have intended to have the crash, but that does not mean it could not have been prevented. How can you not intend to have something unexpected happen? That makes no sense. But you can prevent something unlikely from happening.

"You may not have intended to drive into the ditch, but you did intend to drive when the weather was bad. It could have been prevented by staying home."

Just like this driver. If he had secured his tarp, he could have avoided driving distracted. He did not intend to kill people that day, but he also did not prevent it. That's why he's in jail.

In a few weeks, I will be teaching at a Performance Driving class at a race track. 'Intention' is the key to good racing. I will teach the students that your car will go exactly where you are looking, so look where you want to go. And I will show them; if they don't look where they want to go, they will find themselves in a farmer's field. Intention. There are very few true accidents on a race track.

[llama66]

Yet he sits guilty and will spend 8 years in a fabulous federal institution

[Prof_Chomsky]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

What is the common theme? Accidents lack intent. They're not unpreventable.
Now stop arguing with the official language. Maybe it would be convenient for you to redefine a lot of words, but that isn't how it works.

That is exactly how safety training works. You are confusing 'prevent', and 'intend', with 'avoid'. You may not have intended to have the crash, but that does not mean it could not have been prevented. How can you not intend to have something unexpected happen? That makes no sense. But you can prevent something unlikely from happening.

"You may not have intended to drive into the ditch, but you did intend to drive when the weather was bad. It could have been prevented by staying home."

Just like this driver. If he had secured his tarp, he could have avoided driving distracted. He did not intend to kill people that day, but he also did not prevent it. That's why he's in jail.

In a few weeks, I will be teaching at a Performance Driving class at a race track. 'Intention' is the key to good racing. I will teach the students that your car will go exactly where you are looking, so look where you want to go. And I will show them; if they don't look where they want to go, they will find themselves in a farmer's field. Intention. There are very few true accidents on a race track.

Now you're rambling and changing the subject. It was an accident. Accidents do NOT need to be unpreventable like you just said and called me dumb over. Accidents happen. Accidents aren't criminal.

What I think you mean to say, and should be saying is he made a MISTAKE. Mistakes suck, and are usually accidental. But, since mistakes are by definition preventable, then it comes down to negligence. Was the mistake an honest accident that would have taken extraordinary measure to avoid, or, was this mistake the result of idiocy?

That's a different conversation. His mistake was missing a stop sign, due to a distracting tarp, which caused an accident. The crown prosecuted him and decided 8 years was suitable. I said "that's about as fair as you'll get in this shitty situation".

And I stand by that. It's a shitty situation. All the guy did was accidentally run a stop sign through a mistake in judgment that could have, and has, happened to every single person of driving age. There are no winners here. No punishments. Only Justice. And as I said, justice is punishments meant to deter, and rehabilitation meant to stop recidivism. There isn't anything the crown or society can do in this specific situation that will scare future drivers into always driving perfectly, or that will stop him from killing someone with a car again. I'm betting he kills himself, or at minimum chooses to never drive again.

I honestly don't know what the right punishment is here. I admit that. It's a no win situation with no justice for anyone. I don’t think throwing the guy in with hardened criminals at a cost of a half million dollars to the taxpayer is going to solve or help anything. He'll come out a bigger criminal than he went in. Maybe they should force him to perform 8 years of public service and donate his wage to the victims?

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

What is the common theme? Accidents lack intent. They're not unpreventable.
Now stop arguing with the official language. Maybe it would be convenient for you to redefine a lot of words, but that isn't how it works.

That is exactly how safety training works. You are confusing 'prevent', and 'intend', with 'avoid'. You may not have intended to have the crash, but that does not mean it could not have been prevented. How can you not intend to have something unexpected happen? That makes no sense. But you can prevent something unlikely from happening.

"You may not have intended to drive into the ditch, but you did intend to drive when the weather was bad. It could have been prevented by staying home."

Just like this driver. If he had secured his tarp, he could have avoided driving distracted. He did not intend to kill people that day, but he also did not prevent it. That's why he's in jail.

In a few weeks, I will be teaching at a Performance Driving class at a race track. 'Intention' is the key to good racing. I will teach the students that your car will go exactly where you are looking, so look where you want to go. And I will show them; if they don't look where they want to go, they will find themselves in a farmer's field. Intention. There are very few true accidents on a race track.

Now you're rambling and changing the subject. It was an accident. Accidents do NOT need to be unpreventable like you just said and called me dumb over. Accidents happen. Accidents aren't criminal.

What I think you mean to say, and should be saying is he made a MISTAKE. Mistakes suck, and are usually accidental. But, since mistakes are by definition preventable, then it comes down to negligence. Was the mistake an honest accident that would have taken extraordinary measure to avoid, or, was this mistake the result of idiocy?

That's a different conversation. His mistake was missing a stop sign, due to a distracting tarp, which caused an accident. The crown prosecuted him and decided 8 years was suitable. I said "that's about as fair as you'll get in this shitty situation".

And I stand by that. It's a shitty situation. All the guy did was accidentally run a stop sign through a mistake in judgment that could have, and has, happened to every single person of driving age. There are no winners here. No punishments. Only Justice. And as I said, justice is punishments meant to deter, and rehabilitation meant to stop recidivism. There isn't anything the crown or society can do in this specific situation that will scare future drivers into always driving perfectly, or that will stop him from killing someone with a car again. I'm betting he kills himself, or at minimum chooses to never drive again.

I honestly don't know what the right punishment is here. I admit that. It's a no win situation with no justice for anyone. I don’t think throwing the guy in with hardened criminals at a cost of a half million dollars to the taxpayer is going to solve or help anything. He'll come out a bigger criminal than he went in. Maybe they should force him to perform 8 years of public service and donate his wage to the victims?

I am still on the same subject, and I have never called anyone dumb.

If it was preventable, then it was not an accident. I don't know how many analogies it's going to take to make that point.

If you drive too fast and you crash, it was not an accident. If you are shingling a roof, and you fall off the roof, it was not an accident. These outcomes may not have been intended, but they are not accidents because there was a reasonable expectation at the outcome, and ways to prevent them from happening.

The truck driver did not 'accidentally' run a stop sign, he did so unintentionally but it could have been prevented. He chose not to prevent driving distracted. It was no accident.

I don't know how to be more clear than that.

[llama66]

$1:

He'll come out a bigger criminal than he went in.

So you now admit he's a criminal, that what he did was criminal.

[Prof_Chomsky]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I am still on the same subject, and I have never called anyone dumb.

If it was preventable, then it was not an accident. I don't know how many analogies it's going to take to make that point.

If you drive too fast and you crash, it was not an accident. If you are shingling a roof, and you fall off the roof, it was not an accident. These outcomes may not have been intended, but they are not accidents because there was a reasonable expectation at the outcome, and ways to prevent them from happening.

The truck driver did not 'accidentally' run a stop sign, he did so unintentionally but it could have been prevented. He chose not to prevent driving distracted. It was no accident.

I don't know how to be more clear than that.

And back in circles we go. Stop arguing with the dictionary definition of accident and accidentally.


Again, from the Cambridge English dictionary:

accidentally
adverb US ​ /ˌæk·səˈdent·əl·i/

He accidentally left the water running and flooded a bathroom floor in the hotel.



From Merriam Webster:

Definition of accidentally
: in an accidental or unintended manner : by accident
I accidentally deleted the file.

The Olympic test was thrown out after the test lab accidentally destroyed the backup sample … that's required to confirm a positive result.



From the Oxford English Dictionary:

accidentally
ADVERB
By chance; inadvertently.

‘accidentally knocked the vase over’




All preventable. But still the literal dictionary definition of "accidental" - cause, well all the English dictionaries used it to define the word accidental. Literally. The literal dictionary definition.

Maybe in the "Dr.Caleb Condensed Pseudo-English Dictionary According to People Losing Arguments or that are Otherwise Wrong" the definition is different. But in the rest of the world, you're provably wrong.

Your argument isn't with me. Your argument is with the English language, linguistics scholars, and sanity itself. May God have mercy on your soul.

[llama66]

Saying accident over and over is not going to make it an accident. Its not. It never was, it'll never be one. Sorry.

[Prof_Chomsky]

llama66 llama66:

$1:

He'll come out a bigger criminal than he went in.

So you now admit he's a criminal, that what he did was criminal.

Judge Judy has spoken.

[llama66]

Did you dip into the kitty?

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

All preventable. But still the literal dictionary definition of "accidental" - cause, well all the English dictionaries used it to define the word accidental. Literally. The literal dictionary definition.

Maybe in the "Dr.Caleb Condensed Pseudo-English Dictionary According to People Losing Arguments or that are Otherwise Wrong" the definition is different. But in the rest of the world, you're provably wrong.

Your argument isn't with me. Your argument is with the English language, linguistics scholars, and sanity itself. May God have mercy on your soul.

You are arguing 'English' in a 'legal' setting. Words in Legalese are not always the same as defined in English. Take 'Person' for example.

And . . . why so serious?

llama66 llama66:

Saying accident over and over is not going to make it an accident. Its not. It never was, it'll never be one. Sorry.

Exactly. You can't reasonably foresee an accident happening, nor can you prevent it. If it could be predicted, or prvented, it was not an accident.

[DrCaleb]

$1:

Owner of trucking company involved in Humboldt Broncos bus crash pleads guilty to safety charges

The owner of the transport truck involved in the deadly Humboldt Broncos bus crash has admitted he did not follow provincial and federal safety rules in the months leading up to the collision.

Sukhmander Singh of Adesh Deol Trucking was not in court Wednesday when his lawyer pleaded guilty on his behalf to five charges.

The convictions include failing to keep a daily drivers log, neglecting to ensure his drivers complied with safety regulations and having more than one daily logbook.

Singh also pleaded guilty to not having or following a written safety program.

Court documents showed the offences occurred between Jan. 1 and March 31 — prior to the fatal crash on April 6.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5101871/humb ... y-charges/