Well then maybe next time you can refer me to an actual article or news source rather than a wiki entry.
No, as the wiki entry was a good-enough summary.
As I said earlier, I agree that proactive planning, such as risk analysis, is a worthwhile activity.
And there you go again. In the very same sentence where you focused on risk analysis and went with it to misrepresent what I said, I also mentioned insurance and the judicial system. But hey, it's easier to strawman someone if you just focus on partial sentence.
I was not speculating anything. Rather I was simply saying that any claim or statement on what might have happened had the bear spray been deployed sooner is speculation. Some speculation is more sound than other (e.g. most would agree that a dead airplane jumper, from your earlier example, likely would have survived had he worn a parachute) but its still speculation and not fact....that's my only point on that. I'm not at all sure why you find this concept so provocative.
I'm not finding anything you say "provocative". I find it tiresome.
And, yes, saying that you can't go back and see what went wrong because even if they had done things differently, the outcome
might have been the same is the definition of speculation.
As for throwing aside all conventional wisdom on learning from past mistakes, you're trying to turn this discussion into something that it is not.
Again with the misrepresentation. I am saying that what went down put them more in risk than most of us will be.
Of course people learn from their mistakes and find areas for improvement (which is why things like seat belts have been developed). And there are most certainly lessons to be learned from this incident with bear attack (I never said otherwise). Please recall that your post that I was responding to initially was claiming that the bear spray had worked
And it DID work. Just because they tried to wrestle a bear, without having an arm up to protect their neck, followed up by a whipping of the bear that most likely enraged it (watch the video), and that they were then so slow to begin spraying the bear that he bloke had already been injured does NOT mean that the spray didn't work. What DIDN'T work was their safety protocol and their lacklustre response.
My response was that the bear spray's effectiveness did not make the the victim any less dead and so was a moot point
What killed him was not the inefficiency of bear spray, but rather what I have already mentioned numerous time - You know, the facts surrounding the incident that you continue to ignore.
and that any presumption that an earlier deployment of the bear spray would have saved the victim's life is speculation not fact, regardless of how well founded that speculation might be.
I already mentioned the judicial system, the pilots, the jumper who jump in front of truck, and the parachute-less jumper, and how you can always argue that someone might have been anyway, or put it as I have put it before: That there is no guarantee that any of them would have survived anyway. Yet, I find that a sophomoric philospphical stance, as it would render our judicial system void, insurance void, and even risk assesment.
It's highly probable he would have survived had the spray been used earlier and thus there is a lesson to be learned, but probability does not = certainty.
When did I talk about "certainty" or "guarantee"? I already gave you the examples - most of which I have repeated in short form in this post.
Do you understand what I am getting at? I'm not at all disputing what lessons could be learned from this incident.
Yes, I understand you, but I find it tiresome after having explained things in details so many times by now.
I'm arguing about the semantics (in terms of 'fact' vs 'probability') while you're arguing about laws of probability (which I don't dispute).
Well, at least you admit you're arguing semantics.
Please show me where I was "strawmanning" you.
I already did in the sentences above where I told you you were strawmanning me. Some times, I referred back to it, but only after I had called a specific notion out. There's a reason I at times cut up a sentence to tell you you were strawmanning me, because that part of the sentence was where the misrepresentation was.
You also don't need to get so worked up over this...this is a forum...people have opinions....often times they differ from one another.
Er, likewise? Especially the part where you claimed I was uncomfortable around guns. I play the statistics, and I don't trust my fellow man to react "responsible" when frightened. Nor do I trust they can actually hit precisely enough in such a situation. Oh, right, that was another place where you misrepresented me. But, as I said, I'm getting tired of this. You admitted you're arguing semantics and all the while you have showed no inclination to read what I actually write, to understand an argument, so I think we can conclude this "debate".
