And those are public, so pardon me if I take issue with them in public. It would make no sense for you to take such stands in public and then if I disagree with them, I somehow have to send you a private message. I can see your point I did say "person" where I should have made it specific to the argument.
And your arguments seem to blame the victim.
Sorry, they do.
And arguments from that standpoint are usually losers, and they uually come from those who just like to make a case for the sake of making a case.
Sportswriters, lawyers...somebody is always there to show you the side they think you're missing, when to the contrary, most of us have seen it and reject it. It isn't provocative, it doen't shed light on anything, it just tries to deflect responsibility from where the responsibility rests.
It's like you've determined that the kid is 15% percent to blame, and all of us should direct our focus to the smaller portion of the pie chart.
It's a little disconcerting to see so much time thrown into "Well I know the University shouldnt have asked this kid to go up there, but what about the kid? What role does he play?"
This kind of argument reminds me of my grandmother, who would watch the news and ask why the victim of a not at fault accident was doing on the street.
Sure, we get the point of how in a perfect world, this kid should have put his age, lack of life experience, and duty to his employer aside and come down from the tower.
But this point is maybe worth the 1 in a 99+1 equals 100 equation.
Thanks for pointing it out, we all appreciate it, and now back to reality where the responsibility for worker's safety rests with the employer.
We don't have to worry about towers falling over if somebody in an authoritative decision doesn't ask somebody to go up in it in a 50 mph windstorm.