Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:28:12 +0100
In message <ed8je2p1h84sthtkor91qh6745kvnb7kqd@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:59:07 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <760ce21ha2cvnrm0jp6m4csdj5rvmqgtkp@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:04:40 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[snip]
wrote:
In message <r7s9e2tai8i5htb2njt20umeqrof9hj2o6@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:10:33 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[snip]
wrote:
In message <0u69e25aaf3vkmi77848g6si6antv76nvm@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:52:24 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <1155762200.417865.44240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Skyewalk" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
All the more reason for safety provisions.
Why and at what cost?
To reduce death and injury. Cost shouldn't come into it.
How do you cost the life of a small child?
That's a remark that is fairly easy to make as a cheap statement but
difficult to turn into a definitive application.
What price do you cost the life of a small child at Angus?
How much of your income do you directly put into saving human life?
How much do you spend on health and welfare of other individuals?
What percentage of tax of your income and assets are you prepared to see
used in terms of human health and welfare?
What do you do for a living?
You're very good at throwing criticism at others about what they should
be doing. But give us some examples of how you practice what you preach.
I see, when you run out of legitimate argument you start attacking the
individual.
You asked me how I costed the life of a small child. I asked you what
your answer to that question was. Not as an abstract argument but
evidenced by the real currency value you placed on human life through
your own actions.
You have refused to answer.
So let me do the same.
I am quite happy answer such questions since I am not ashamed of my
personal actions.
Let me quote from a well known medical journal, 'The Lancet' Volume 354,
page 1395 (1999)
'But what distinguishes Mike Clark's site and what saves it from having
a "textbook" feel, is his ability to mingle his personal information,
interests, opinions and creativity with the highly detailed molecular
material.'
Do you only post and access websites in your employer's time when you
could perhaps be researching for cancer cures?
I don't have any defined working hours or specified working location. I
am just as likely to come up with the idea for the next scientific
breakthrough whilst going for a walk in the Scottish Hills, taking a
shower at home, or sitting in an office behind my computer.
Ideas are what I carry in my head based on 30 years of research in my
field. However solving complex problems isn't simply a matter of time
and effort. If you double the amount of time, or double the number of
scientists, you don't necessarily double the productive output.
Would people donate to cancer charities if they thought this was
happening?
They ought to base their judgement on results rather than their own
expectations of what they think is happening.
Such cases are obviously a tragedy for those families that
are involved but we shouldn't let reports of such personal
tragedies distort our perspective as a society.
So deaths don't matter provided the society's perspective is upheld.
So what it its perspective?
In the grand scheme of things we are born, we live and interact with
each other and the world, and then we die. Society is about balancing
the expectations of each individual against those of all others. It
isn't perfect, it isn't utopian.
Never said it was. But measures should be taken to reduce accidents.
Measures are taken to reduce accidents and if you look at the National
Statistics available at
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/fatl0506.pdf
you'll see that accident rates are in general on the decrease.
[snip]
Didn't help the four children.
From your postings you clearly have a definition of safe that means the
result should be zero death or injury.
Handrails of safe pathways could most probably have prevented the
deaths
"could", "most" and "probably". Not very definitive statements
coming from someone who seems to place definitive standards on others.
Handrails are proven safety measures at many places where heights are
involved.
Yes but it isn't clear that height was an issue in every case you have
cited. Equally if someone is going to deliberately jump from a height
the hand rail is not going to be effective.
I notice from the HSE statistics I quoted above that nearly as many
members of the public die from "Low Fall" as from "High Fall" and that
many more die as a result of a "Slip or trip".
On the other hand legal liability does not assume zero risk.
No but it makes people accountable.
Yes it makes them accountable, but the test of accountability does not
assume they must create a situation of zero risk.
There can never be zero risk. I'm not implying that. The fact you
bounce from extreme to extreme shows you have no argument.
Tell me Angus, you seem to follow the news reports quite a lot. How many
landowners have been successfully prosecuted recently for not taking
sufficient steps to ensure the safety of the public on their land?
None that I know of, but that's why changes are needed.
but it is objectively impossible to 'make them safe' in such a
way that there was no risk to individuals.
What has objectivity to do with it. It seems the only two words you
think of is objectivity and subjectivity. Grow up!
What is wrong with taking a scientific viewpoint and questioning
what is objective and what is subjective about the topic under
consideration?
Unlikely to achieve consensus.
Whoever said it was necessary to achieve a consensus?
If nobody agrees about anything there would be chaos.
Where have you been living for most of your life? Planet Utopia again?
Where is this world full of consensus and where there is no
disagreement?
Didn't you say you watched the 6pm News and read "The Mail"? They're
full of stories of consensus and agreement are they?
[snip]
Are you now speaking in abstract terms or are you being specific to a
given incident?
What 'pathway,, what 'purpose' and what is 'fit for'?
Any pathway open to the public by organisations that promote outdoor
activities should be fit for use by the general public in terms of
safety.
Clearly then we have failed the test with regard to the national road
network.
Perhaps putting railings and crash-barriers down the sides of each lane
on all roads should be done, no matter what the cost? We could also
restrict all vehicles to a maximum speed of 20mph since this would
greatly reduce the severity of accidents.
What did I say about bouncing between extremes?
I don't know what did you say? You're the one who advocates fencing up
all the wilderness areas that have public access in case someone might
happen to trip, slip or fall.
When I argued that it was sensible to conduct a cost benefit analysis it
was you that attacked me and my principles saying that I obviously
didn't value human life.
On a similar basis, but with much harder evidence, we can demonstrate
that the public road network, to which the public are encouraged to have
access, is full of dangers that can be alleviated with proper safety
measures.
Motorways have a much better safety record than dual carriageways, which
in turn have a better safety record than ordinary A roads and B roads.
Clearly by putting more investment into roads we could upgrade them and
make them safer. But how much do you think we should spend? What value
do you think we should put on human life?
[snip]
At this moment I'm trying to understand what it is that has motivated
you to behave the way you do? Have you had some personal traumatic
experience or suffered some personal abuse that has led you to behave in
the way you do?
All I do is expose the fakes in conservation and oppose the killing of
wildlife.
But what do you do personally to save human lives?
See above.
What seems to be apparent to me is that you put a higher value on
wildlife than human life. Except that is where the human life is your
family.
Do you gain some kind of personal satisfaction or pleasure out
of continually complaining about life and society? Is there
nothing else in your life that gives you a higher motivation?
I don't complain about life and society. All I do is expose the fakes
in conservation and oppose the killing of wildlife.
But what do you do personally to save human lives?
Drive carefully.
That is a very reasonable contribution, thank you.
What about the other aspects of your philosophy of life?
How much of your income do you directly put into saving human life?
How much do you spend on health and welfare of other individuals?
What percentage of tax of your income and assets are you prepared to see
used in terms of human health and welfare?
What do you do for a living?
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
.
- References:
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Skyewalk
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Four in a row"
- From: Mike Clark
- Re: Four in a row"
- Prev by Date: Re: a walk in the hills with a difference...
- Next by Date: Re: OTish MS Flight Sim ELD
- Previous by thread: Re: Four in a row"
- Next by thread: Re: Four in a row"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
