Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Virginia teen was detained and prosecuted for saying 'OINK OINK' to cop
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ana the Ist" data-source="post: 74029920" data-attributes="member: 302807"><p>And the dangers of the other jobs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A cop doesn't get injured by being mistaken about the application of a law or arresting the wrong suspect. These things happen all the time without incident.</p><p></p><p>We could count incidents where they pull someone over on a busy road...and don't pull over far enough and get struck by another driver...but there's still someone else involved.</p><p></p><p>How do we compare that to the danger of a roofer? If a roof collapses under him...that's certainly not his fault. If he drinks before work and slips and falls off the roof...that's not really a danger inherent to roofing. That's a danger of drinking and doing something that is normally not very risky at all.</p><p></p><p>How do we discount all those incidents without any data on them?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well comparing one crash to another makes sense...they're similar to each other. Comparing the danger of vehicle travel to walking however....that doesn't seem to make much sense at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which doesn't make any sense...</p><p></p><p>We could be looking at a typical day for a soldier and his wife. The soldiers goes out and shoots at people, get shot at, but comes out unscathed. The wife at home however, burns her finger while making a pot roast.</p><p></p><p>If we used your method, we would have to conclude that the wife had the more dangerous day. That would be absurd. It would make more sense to just subjectively consider the difficulty of avoiding danger on the job. Is it harder to avoid getting shot? Or is it harder to cook a pot roast without getting burned? Probably getting shot, right?</p><p></p><p>I understand that's not a perfect way to look at things, but it will allow to avoid making ridiculous claims like "being assaulted isn't that dangerous" or "landscapers have a more dangerous job than cops".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then how can we reasonably compare that kind of job to one where danger comes almost entirely from mistakes made by the worker or their coworkers? That's exactly the point I made originally. It's a completely different kind of danger...one that cannot simply be avoided by training harder or performing your job correctly all of the time.</p><p></p><p>We are comparing unlike things. Simply calling them both danger just glosses over that fact.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But not really to dangers that don't come from people attacking you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which isn't going to be counted in the statistics I presented.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sometimes it involves running for cover while someone shoots at you...but just because they missed their shots doesn't mean you aren't in any danger. That would be a ridiculous position.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not making that assumption....but that is the risk they take on every day they go to work. There was a cop killed fairly recently during a traffic accident. Some guy with mental problems was on a bicycle, completely unrelated to the accident, didn't know her, and shot her....killing her, because he had something against the police.</p><p></p><p>That's not really a danger in other the vast majority of jobs. Nobody is out there shooting roofers in the back because he has something against roofers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And? Because they killed someone who was trying to kill them....they weren't in danger?</p><p></p><p>What is the conclusion that you're making here?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why? Because a cop successfully fought for their life against an attacker and didn't sustain an injury?</p><p></p><p>It's a completely bizarre argument that I can only imagine you're making to back your earlier hasty statements. Here's an example of some surfers narrowly avoiding a shark attack? How narrowly? One of them punched the shark...</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbs17.com/amp/news/surfer-narrowly-escapes-wild-shark-attack-after-punching-shark/1080807024" target="_blank">Surfer narrowly escapes wild shark attack after punching shark</a></p><p></p><p>If I were to assess danger the way you want to....I'd be concluding that no one was ever in danger. Would that be reasonable to you? Or would it sound rather silly for me to say the surfers weren't in any danger?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ana the Ist, post: 74029920, member: 302807"] And the dangers of the other jobs. A cop doesn't get injured by being mistaken about the application of a law or arresting the wrong suspect. These things happen all the time without incident. We could count incidents where they pull someone over on a busy road...and don't pull over far enough and get struck by another driver...but there's still someone else involved. How do we compare that to the danger of a roofer? If a roof collapses under him...that's certainly not his fault. If he drinks before work and slips and falls off the roof...that's not really a danger inherent to roofing. That's a danger of drinking and doing something that is normally not very risky at all. How do we discount all those incidents without any data on them? Well comparing one crash to another makes sense...they're similar to each other. Comparing the danger of vehicle travel to walking however....that doesn't seem to make much sense at all. Which doesn't make any sense... We could be looking at a typical day for a soldier and his wife. The soldiers goes out and shoots at people, get shot at, but comes out unscathed. The wife at home however, burns her finger while making a pot roast. If we used your method, we would have to conclude that the wife had the more dangerous day. That would be absurd. It would make more sense to just subjectively consider the difficulty of avoiding danger on the job. Is it harder to avoid getting shot? Or is it harder to cook a pot roast without getting burned? Probably getting shot, right? I understand that's not a perfect way to look at things, but it will allow to avoid making ridiculous claims like "being assaulted isn't that dangerous" or "landscapers have a more dangerous job than cops". Then how can we reasonably compare that kind of job to one where danger comes almost entirely from mistakes made by the worker or their coworkers? That's exactly the point I made originally. It's a completely different kind of danger...one that cannot simply be avoided by training harder or performing your job correctly all of the time. We are comparing unlike things. Simply calling them both danger just glosses over that fact. But not really to dangers that don't come from people attacking you. Which isn't going to be counted in the statistics I presented. Sometimes it involves running for cover while someone shoots at you...but just because they missed their shots doesn't mean you aren't in any danger. That would be a ridiculous position. I'm not making that assumption....but that is the risk they take on every day they go to work. There was a cop killed fairly recently during a traffic accident. Some guy with mental problems was on a bicycle, completely unrelated to the accident, didn't know her, and shot her....killing her, because he had something against the police. That's not really a danger in other the vast majority of jobs. Nobody is out there shooting roofers in the back because he has something against roofers. And? Because they killed someone who was trying to kill them....they weren't in danger? What is the conclusion that you're making here? Why? Because a cop successfully fought for their life against an attacker and didn't sustain an injury? It's a completely bizarre argument that I can only imagine you're making to back your earlier hasty statements. Here's an example of some surfers narrowly avoiding a shark attack? How narrowly? One of them punched the shark... [URL='https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbs17.com/amp/news/surfer-narrowly-escapes-wild-shark-attack-after-punching-shark/1080807024']Surfer narrowly escapes wild shark attack after punching shark[/URL] If I were to assess danger the way you want to....I'd be concluding that no one was ever in danger. Would that be reasonable to you? Or would it sound rather silly for me to say the surfers weren't in any danger? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Virginia teen was detained and prosecuted for saying 'OINK OINK' to cop
Top
Bottom