If you are not arguing cause, then you should not use the words "predictable consequence" in reference to a specific incident, because that is equivalent to arguing cause.

I am surprised, because I don't understand what you think the words mean.

A man argues that we don't need to salt roads in the winter. Argues it for years. Argues that nature takes care of roads and that actually it's important we leave them in their natural state. When people note that means people will die driving in icy road conditions, he declares that's the price you pay for natural roads and, anyway, it doesn't matter because most road fatalities are bad drivers anyway.

He drives one winter, slides right off the road, his car wraps around a tree, and he dies.

Did he cause his death? No. Conditions did. Conditions and some bad luck.

Is his death a predictable consequence of the conditions, the conditions he argued were necessary to preserve? Yes.

Do I feel sorry for him? It's hard for me, personally, to feel sorry for someone who got to drive on those icy roads he loved for so long before the dice rolled bad for him. But I've known too many, personally, who died on these roads, so my empathy on that specific topic is a bit burned out. It's reserved for those who advocate strongly that we could plow and salt these roads and then die anyway.

> Is his death a predictable consequence

"Predictable" requires: "could a reasonable person have held a high prior probability of that man, specifically, dying in this manner?"

No.

The definition of "consequence" is conflated. The motte is "the conditions increased the probability of the event". The bailey is something like "the event follows from the conditions due to moral law". For example, when people speak of "consequences" for a crime, they refer to punishment.

If we reflect the analogy back onto the original case, we're talking about situation in which our anti-road-salt activist lived in a world where the roads were already not salted, and had no direct control over that policy and negligible impact on the minds of those who do. Further, his words should have made him no more likely to die than anyone else driving on the same road. Except for the fact that the road is supposed to be analogous to the shooter, who in reality had consciousness and a motive.

Relatively speaking, he's an American, so yes. His prior is way higher than people in other countries. Moral law doesn't enter into it. That's really all I'm saying.

> Lived in a world where

Well, a country where. But sure; I catch your meaning.

> and negligible impact on the minds of those who do

Agree to disagree. The President of the United States broke the news of his death; he had the ear of politically powerful people in the US.

> his words should have made him no more likely to die than anyone else driving on the same road

Agreed. No likelier than any other American. But, that's way too damn likely.

> Except for the fact that the road is supposed to be analogous to the shooter, who in reality had consciousness and a motive.

Ah. Here's the issue.

While every individual shooter has a motive (or not; my relative was shot by someone suffering a psychotic break), the system makes it more likely Americans will get shot than their neighbors in other countries. America, specifically, has a dangerous mix of too many guns and too much distress. That's not really disputable without just ignoring the statistics.

And Kirk was fine with that. Well, fine enough to think the current balance of gun ownership was correct. Perhaps he advocated for better mental healthv support or more financial equality, to address the distress? I may have missed it. Never heard it if he did.

It's not acceptable he was shot. But Kirk accepted that someone gets shot his whole public life. He argued, vociferously and frequently, that some people were just going to die and that was the price of freedom.

Was he right?

Is a vocal anti-vaxxer dying from a 2% mortality disease, where a vaccine reduces it to 0.05% mortality a predictable consequence? Is someone standing on a rooftop during a thunderstorm, and getting struck a predictable consequence? Is inciting your country into going to war, and then being one of the small % of the population dying in that war a predictable consequence?

I wouldn't put 'high probability' money on a <2% probability event, but I would not be surprised by it.

> Is a vocal anti-vaxxer dying from a 2% mortality disease, where a vaccine reduces it to 0.05% mortality a predictable consequence? Is someone standing on a rooftop during a thunderstorm, and getting struck a predictable consequence? Is inciting your country into going to war, and then being one of the small % of the population dying in that war a predictable consequence?

No, no, and no. I already explained this very clearly.

You've watered down the concept of predictable consequences to the point of uselessness. If wearing a seatbelt while driving, not climbing up on the roof during a thunderstorm, not plunging your country into a war, or getting vaccinated to protect yourself from a dangerous disease are not mitigating 'predictable consequences', the term is just empty air.

Why are you choosing this semantic hill to fortify? What value does it bring?

> You've watered down the concept of predictable consequences to the point of uselessness.

No, I have not. There are plenty of situations in which something can be called a predictable consequence, and where doing so is useful.

> Why are you choosing this semantic hill to fortify? What value does it bring?

It brings the value of clear communication, and respect for the English language. I believe strongly that words should have a coherent meaning.

Words having one coherent meaning?

In English?

I think we've found the core philosophical disagreement that makes it unlikely we will see eye-to-eye.

> It brings the value of clear communication

You are quite clearly understanding everything that I'm saying[1], but I'll bite.

What sequence of characters would be 'the proper English' that I should use to describe the scenarios that I've presented in a parent post?

Be sure to be clear, unambiguous, and concise.

---

[1] s/saying/writing/g