Seattle Area Outage - Unions

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin asked:

You are also making an assumption that the union electricians were "supposed to end the outage as soon as possible". How do you know that they weren't working to end the outage as soon as possible?

No, I am not making that assumption, nor was Shek. We both posited that AS an assumption or as a given. That's where we used words like "if we are to assume", or "if we are to believe that". Such words have meaning, and there meaning is to assume as relevant what is being stated for the purpose of furthering an argument.



Gavin, regardless the point of the original article, you claimed a very common-sensical and un-inflammatory statement by R Shek was the stupidest you have read in a long time. Your statement was much more inflammatory than R Sheks. And as R Shek said, if his rational comment was about anyone else, you probably wouldn't have reacted that way.



I still don't see anything inflammatory about the following:

According to the initial post, the unions were not exactly busting ass to get power restored and people were getting desperate, hence why the unions need to accept some of the blame (if the initial story is true) for people dying from cold/CO poisoning.

Please help me see it.



Go back to the words R Shek used...not what you think they mean, not what you took them to mean, but what they actually say, and tell me exactly what is wrong, stupid, and inflammatory about what he said (please)?



I'll help you with my restatement of those words:

According to the initial post,

This to me means: Given what was initially reported, or in other words, if we are to assume for a second the report given...

the unions were not exactly busting ass to get power restored and people were getting desperate,

That to me means: The unions were not doing all in their power to restore power as quickly as possible, as as a result, people got desperate. This combined with the last statement sets an assumption of a deriliction in duty that resulted in a condition that might otherwise not exist.

hence why the unions need to accept some of the blame (if the initial story is true) for people dying from cold/CO poisoning.

Lastly that part states that: if the assumption is true (which clearly means it may not be), then unions should accept SOME blame.



So, as you all can see, there were at least two attempts at positioning and posturing to define the assumption, and then the logical assertion that follows given the assumption.



Dozens of posts since debate if the assumption is true (which is pointless, because if this were a math proof that would be "the given"), or try to poke holes in the shared blame concept, which no one seems to really want to do.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

It is stupid to blame union electricians for killing families with carbon monoxide. How many times do I have to say it?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin says:

It is stupid to blame union electricians for killing families with carbon monoxide. How many times do I have to say it?

But that's NOT what they are being blamed for!



The statement was made that they should share in the overall blame for the tragedy if they were found negligent of their duty.



They aren't being blamed for people poisoning themselves, but for potential deriliction of duty that led to events that allows people to poison themselves.



Do you see the difference?



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

How can you blame someone for potentially doing or not doing something?



How did the event allow people to poison themselves? People could poison themselves with or without electrical service. There is no relationship between having electricity or not having electricity to poisoning. I still fail to see how anyone with common sense and logic could come to the conclusion that union electricians had any blame for poisoning.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin, here's another story about responsibility and blame.



My father was killed in 1999 when a state of OK DOT truck blew a tire, lost control, crossed a four lane highway (without median or divider) and struck his van, killing him instantly.



Through my investigation and the investigation of lawyers (yes, the fine legal system we have) it was determined that:



a) the tire that blew was incorrectly and illegally patched on its sidewall.



b) the State of OK had no records of any kind on vehicle maint so it couldn't determine when and who repaired the tire illegally



c) given the volume of traffic and the speed limit on the 4 lane highway, current state of OK regulations required a median or barrier which that road didn't have.



Due to OK state torte laws my family never did receive any real amount of money in a settlement, nor was that ever the reason for the lawsuit, but as part of that 'blame game' we got things changed.



A barrier was installed on that stretch of highway and regulations were drafted requiring detailed maintenance records on state vehicles.



Sure, I could have simply looked at the person that was driving the truck and lost control of it when the tire blew and considered them solely and ultimately responsible.



But what good would that have done?



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin stated:

I still fail to see how anyone with common sense and logic could come to the conclusion that union electricians had any blame for poisoning.

Because you keep saying that we are showing that the electricians are to blame for the poisoning. We aren't saying that. We are showing possible culpability.



Let me put it in simple terms, and PLEASE answer this question given its assumed situation:



Q: If people died of carbon monoxide poisoning during the 3rd day of a long power outtage that would have only lasted two days if no negligence of duty was performed, then would it be true that their deaths would have been avoided IF those responsible performed their duties as expected?



The answers are YES or NO?



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

I'm sorry about your father. That must have been quite painful for you. I imagine losing a parent is a huge loss. I don't know, though-- I still have both of my parents.



As for what good would it have done to blame the truck driver? I don't know. Was their any proof that the truck drive did anything wrong? Sometimes things happen. Sorry, but sometimes things happen and we will never know why. Blaming him might have caused him to lose his job and his family to be very poor.



I guess a barrier installed was a good thing. It may save lives.



Detailed records of vehicle maintenance- I don't know if this is a good thing or not. Keeping detailed records probably caused the state to hire another beauracrat or even several more. This may have caused your taxes to increase, or may have caused cuts in another budget (medicaid or road repair). Was this a good thing? I don't know.



What good would it have done to know which shop repaired the tire? I guess you could have gotten them closed down and employees lost their jobs, but would that be good?



Money for your family-- I don't know if that would have been good or not. It wouldn't have brought your Dad back. I assume that he had life insurance to cover the expenses of his death. What services would the state government have to cut if it had to pay your family money? I don't know if money for your family would have been a good thing or not.



Like I said, sometimes bad things happen. That is life. We should try to prevent them from happening again, and I am very OK with punishing folks who do bad things to others. However, I don't know what good comes from trying to assign blame for every bad thing that happens in this world.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Because you keep saying that we are showing that the electricians are to blame for the poisoning. We aren't saying that. We are showing possible culpability.

Main Entry: cul·pa·ble

Pronunciation: 'k&l-p&-b&l

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English coupable, from Anglo-French cupable, culpable, from Latin culpabilis, from culpare to blame, from culpa guilt

1 archaic : GUILTY, CRIMINAL

2 : meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful <culpable negligence>

Sorry, I have to use a dictionary to help me make sure I am understanding things right.



No, I still fail to see how union electricians are criminals because some idiot lights a charcoal fire in his house and kills his family. The idiot who lit the fire is the criminal ... er... "culpable".

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Again, Gavin, you missed the point. You make it sound like I play the blame game with every situation in my life, or that I don't understand that sometimes bad things simply happen.



But at the same time, the term "accident" is often used as a term for something that happens that is unavoidable. Most all accidents are VERY avoidable, and are caused by a series of events that contribute to the accident, and often if any one of them is circumvented/righted the accident can be avoided.



Thus, my point: Fixating ONLY on the last event, or even worse, dismissing the whole thing as "bad luck" or some "roll of the dice" simply means the tragedy is likely to be repeated, again, and again.



Also, regarding "culpable", remember, we aren't talking singularly or solely to blame here...but partial or shared blame.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

Q: If people died of carbon monoxide poisoning during the 3rd day of a long power outtage that would have only lasted two days if no negligence of duty was performed, then would it be true that their deaths would have been avoided IF those responsible performed their duties as expected?



The answers are YES or NO?

We don't know if their deaths would have been avoided. There are no guarantees in this life. Who knows-- they may have been electrocuted or their house may have burned down if the power was restored. In this case, a longer delay for restoring their power MAY HAVE KEPT THEM ALIVE LONGER.

 

[Gavin Allan]

But at the same time, the term "accident" is often used as a term for something that happens that is unavoidable. Most all accidents are VERY avoidable, and are caused by a series of events that contribute to the accident, and often if any one of them is circumvented/righted the accident can be avoided.



Thus, my point: Fixating ONLY on the last event, or even worse, dismissing the whole thing as "bad luck" or some "roll of the dice" simply means the tragedy is likely to be repeated, again, and again.

Life is by its very nature a series of event and interdependencies. Sure, if this family would have never been born, they wouldn't have even been here to get poisoned. If their house would have burned down the night before, they wouldn't have been in it to be poisoned. If Tesla and Edison had never invented electricity, they would have never known that it was out and wouldn't have lit a fire inside to keep warm.



So what?



The fact of the matter is that the singular assignable cause for the deaths of the family was the idiot lighting a charcoal fire inside his house.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin, and this is why I am frustrated. When presented with a simple yes and no question, you avoid answering it.



Are you sure you aren't a lawyer?



Reread the question...there are only two possible answers (yes, and no), and as asked, clearly only one RIGHT answer.



The answer is YES...their deaths would have been avoided if the 3rd day they had power as would have been the case as described in the question.



So, this is a case where the negligence of one party caused a condition that allowed the stupid party to harm themselves. Remove that condition and you remove the possibility. And if that possibility was created through negligence...thus partial blame.



There is probably even a legal term for this.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin, I hope that no one in your family is ever injured or killed in an accident or due to some tragic circumstances. If and when that happens, I am sure you won't look any further than those immediately involved...and if they are alone at the time, I am sure you will look no further.



Right?



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

Some questions are not black and white.



I see the world in many shades of gray.



Dogmatic extremist views are usually not helpful for resolving issues.



The ability to critically think and analize a situation and understand many viewpoints has served me well.



Yes, I hope no one in my family is injured or killed in an accident. Until or if that happens, then I will know how I will respond. Until then, it is conjecture and a waste of my time for me to worry about how I will respond. I have plenty of things to handle right now, without digging up past events or worrying about unknown future events.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin said:

Some questions are not black and white.

True, but that question in particular was MY question and I deliberately made it black and white (or so was my attempt).



It wasn't dogmatic or extremist. It was a fundamental logic question.



The logical assertion was:



If a party through its actions causes a period of time and a circumstance to occur, and during that period of time and due to that circumstance somone is hurt (regardless of how), then it is logical to assert that if we were to change the actions of the original party in such a way as to avoid that period of time and circumstance then we will also avoid that injury.



That's logic, not dogma.



It's causality, pure and simple. R Shek indicated potential causality between union members and deaths. Are you denying that possible causality?



It's funny how you see the world as not black and white, but shades of gray. Weren't you the same guy that said your children should never question authority? Sorry if I am mis-remembering.



Seeing things truly in shades of gray means seeing all sides and not jumping to conclusions, or being quick to the jab. Say for instance if someone got their ST hit by a ricer, one wouldn't ask: "Did you jump out and beat the hell out of him?", but instead they might say: "What could have caused them to do that?"



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

I guess we could blame the builder of the home. If he had built the home with a carbon monoxide detector hooked to a couple of huge exhaust fans, the family might not have died.



I'll bet the home builder was a union guy...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Nice skirt there Gavin. As in skirt the issue and the question...not the clothing.



This was about me vs unions, but was me trying to understand why you would totally dis a person here who made a very logical and rational statement. Seems you can't (won't) get past your bias to think about this generally and subjectively, though I have posed repeated "fundamental" type questions that you have ignored.



Later,

TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

Who have I diss'ed here?



The only person I have diss'ed here is the idiot who killed his family with the charcoal fumes.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Sorry, Gavin...you dissed R Shek, by saying his rational, logical statement was the stupidest thing you read in a long time. I tried several times to dissect and restate what Shek said, and show how it was rational, logical and unopinionated, and how it speaks to truisms of logic, accountability and causality, but you never engaged in any of that and instead always took it back to the specifics of the final actions of the charcoal burners, which was not being discussed.



I suspect if he said what he said and it questioned the shared blame of anyone else but union members it would have rolled of your back. Of course, I can't prove that, which is why I say "I suspect", rather than make an authoritative statement.



BTW, I looked up the legal definition of what we are talking about, and its called:



Proximate/Legal Cause (of Injury/Damage), the definition of which is:

PROXIMATE/LEGAL CAUSE (OF INJURY/DAMAGE) - If it played any part, no matter how small, in bringing about the injury or damage. Therefore, even if the violation operated in combination with the act of another, or in combination with some other cause, the violation was a proximate/legal cause of the injury or damage if it played any part, no matter how small, in bringing about the injury or damage.

I suspect that the above wouldn't hold in a criminal court for the case/example in question, but it might very well in a civil court.



All one has to show is that the wrongdoings (in this case the argued deriliction of duty) played a part, in combination with the actions of others (the charcoal burners) and caused injury (in this case death).



It's straightforward. Even a BAD lawyer could make the case. All they would have to do is show deriliction of duty (through testimony) that lead to a prolonged power outtage (citing similar, previous outtages and restoration periods), and the rest is connect the dots. I'm not debating that they could necessarily make the case...but R Shek and I have all along stated that if you assume there was deriliction...



My final question to you Gavin on this thread (final if you continue in not answering them), is:

Do you agree with the legal principle of "PROXIMATE/LEGAL CAUSE", and if so, do you agree that if the electricians were derilict in their duty that it applies in this instance?

TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Q said:

This is not as cut-n-dry as you think. The problem here is that the time it takes to fix something is not a cause of someone doing something stupid, because they have no control over the mistakes of others. IOW, they are not related, it is not a cause and effect relationship.

Which is why R Shek and I have said things like "according to the initial post" and "if you are to assume that the electricians were negligent in their duty"...in other words, assuming that there was a ball dropped then the rest is causal. THAT is a fact. It's a fact that assumes something, yes, but the causal nature is a fact nonetheless.



TJR