Ignoring (aware but disregarding) a law is not the same as being ignorant (unaware) of the law. The law's intent might be safety, but that doesn't mean it's effective. I'm not a lawyer, and have no interest in that line of work currently. I've said this before, but I'm a coder/programmer, and writing good code is really hard most of the time, and I think it's similar to writing good laws. In a perfect world, there would be one law: Everyone do everything perfectly. Of course, imperfections in humanity require the code to be more complex, so instead we have books of laws generally designed to keep society intact. I say generally because some laws do a better job than others. Some laws get written, rolled out, then repealed or amended (like bug fixes or updates in software). The biggest difference between writing code and laws is that the computer will do what you tell it to do, not what you
want it to do; it doesn't care about intent. As for laws, they are often written so broadly, humans are forced to try and judge the intent of the laws, and people do it with varying degrees of success. Some people tend to apply reason and logic to their understanding, while others lean towards faith and emotions - two different approaches that use two very different sets of rules that can lead to very different conclusions.
As applies to this conversation, it really doesn't matter what either of us thinks or believe, what matters are the facts, and trying to honestly answer any questions that are raised. If there are no major accidents when major accidents would be expected, why is that? That question is just as valid as trying to determine why there are major accidents (if there are any). A consideration of all the factors involved to judge safety is the only way to come to a justifiable conclusion. Sitting back and saying 'I don't think it's safe' or 'the law is in place for a reason' isn't an
argument; it's a
conclusion. I think that "arguing by conclusion" is unproductive because it fails to address the root of an actual disagreement, which is likely predicated in either an assumption (used to plug a hole in an unknown), or the methodology itself (e.g., testing to see if the Thoreau Falls bridge can be removed because it's a safe crossing in late August).
So, what is our actual disagreement here that is leading to different conclusions? I would make a terrible politician because I'm actually responding to you, not just saying what I was going to say regardless. "Good" politicians don't answer the question.
And Sierra, let me know what time the sun sets tonight in Tromsø, Norway. I would argue that it doesn't set and I think you'd agree!
Of course, the 'setting" is actually an illusion... ok I'll stop!
