From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 14:39:55 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Becker [mailto:kmb@kai-m-becker.de]
Am Mittwoch, 12. Februar 2003 17:26 schrieb Dickey, Michael F:
> >> ### Ah, exactly, *somebody* must save my life against my will.
> > ... or save other lifes from your influence. Or would freedom also
> > include allowing to drive under influence of alcohol or other drugs?
> I think Kai is saying that by driving, you are polluting, polluting
> which can kill people. By driving under the influence, you an also
> kill people.
"Almost right. Those rules mentioned were not made to save someone against
his own will, but to save someone against the stupidity of others. Some
smart aleck may think that 30mph within cities is to slow for a freedom
loving person like him, ignoring that this rule wasn't made to annoy him,
but to protect the others. A society without any such rules would break
down soon because of the effort for everyone to protect himself against
others and their "freedom"."
I understand what you are trying to convey (I think) and would be in
tentative agreement with it, except that it bugs me just a little. Because
by this reasoning you are essentially punishing someone for doing things
that will make him more likely to injure people, instead of punshing them
for actually injuring them. You are assuming guilt before a crime is
committed. If it is wrong to run over and kill people, then punish people
for doing that. But driving erratically or too fast is not killing people,
until you actually run over and kill people. In which you will be tossed in
jail for rediculous lengths of time deservingly, and serve as a reason to
others why one should not drive fast or erratically. If a person hits and
kills someone while drinking and driving, then they should be found guilty
of 2nd degree murder. In fact, one could argue that driving and killing
anyone through an act of negligence could be considered 2nd degree murder.
Not something punishable by 6 months suspended licenses and 2 years
probation. Regardless of what stupid thing you did that killed someone, you
still killed them from your own actions, you are still a murderer. How is
driving rapidly and recklessly morally indifferent than waving a gun around
and firing randomly. If you hit and killed someone with your gun, you would
be a 2nd degree murderer, would you not? But if you brandish an automobile
recklessly and kill someone you get probation. Why is it less bad to kill
someone through alchoholic impairment and negligence then it is to kill them
willfully? This attidude is what perpetuates the acceptance of negligence
and necessitates the existence of nanny states to limit negligence through
'too many' laws. The fact that we distinguish willfull killing through
planning from accidental killing through negligence (with proportionally
less punishment) is what allows so many people to be accidently killed
through negligent behavior. How many drunken drivers would there be if they
served 25 to life for 2nd degree murder? I am quite sure, at the very
least, none of them would be repeat offenders. If you could be tossed in
jail for half your life for driving too fast through a city and hitting and
killing someone, would you drive that fast?
"So, too few (or wrong) rules is bad, too many rules is also bad. A middle
course is the answer, not black, not white. "
I don't think you have adequately shown that 'too few' rules would be bad,
or worse than 'a middle road' or 'too many'
> This is the same guy, however, who thinks the possibility of a nuclear
> reactor killing millions is worse than the 3 million people who die
> every year from the pollutants from the combustion of fossil fuels.
"I still miss any serious facts that support your claim."
Since I have repeated multiple times the statistic that nearly 3 million
people die every year from atmospheric pollutants from fossil fuel burning
plants and you suggest I have not presented any 'serious facts' to support
my claim, I can only wonder why you don't consider this staggering number of
deaths to be a serious fact? You must have an internally consistent,
rational, and logical reason why you prefer continued fossil fuel burning in
the face of these deaths over nuclear, and I am really trying to get the
information to understand your personal rationalization of that, but right
now, I am just completely confused. Is there a reason why you don't see
that as a good argument in favor of nuclear? Do you dispute those figures
perhaps? Do you feel that a) more are dying every year from nuclear or b)
more would die every year (or total) from nuclear power infrastructures?
As I have said (parroting myself again) approx 3 million people die every
year from atmospheric pollutants specifically released from the combustion
of fossil fuels in power plants. Thousands of others die in coal mining
accidents, natural gas explosions, carbon monoxide inhalation, radon buildup
from stricter energy requirements, etc. etc. Every time I see a natural gas
line running into a resteraunt and hissing I am disgusted.
So I must conclude that you feel nuclear power would kill more than 3
million people per year if our infrastructure was based on that. That's the
only way I can see your opposition as being reasonable. Is that the case?
I would be interested in reading the material you must have read that led
you to this risk calculation.
Regards,
Michael Dickey.
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 14:42:26 MST