Safety

“Security does not exist in nature.” – Helen Keller

Ms. Keller could figure that out, while burdened with significant handicaps. Can you?

You might have the expectation that today is going to be another fine day. It is natural for you to expect that, because days, weeks and years have gone by for you with no nasty surprises. Maybe something nasty is recent in your personal history, and you are facing the new day with hope so you can get through it. Maybe it hasn’t been necessary for you to think about things. You have been protected pretty well by modern society…

Well, that might change pretty fast. Let’s think about it now, before we have to hurry.

What is “safety”? Can you say what it is without using some variation of “safe” in your explanation?

Well – let’s talk about risk first.

Generally, this applies: 

Risk = Probability x Consequences

Probability is the likelihood something will happen. 

This is always a number between, but not including, 0 (never happens/will never happen) and 1 (always happens/is happening). 

These values are excluded because they are absolutes which cannot be observed to exist in properly defined venues – they are no longer probabilities.

Consequences is an “open” term, with positive and negative values, because this is set as part of the definition of the risk.

Risk always happens within a venue – within defined boundaries. Because {probability} is always positive and {consequences} can be negative or positive, Risk can be positive – a reward – or negative – a penalty. 

During any activity, {probability} and {consequences} change constantly, but by different degrees due to change in the environment.

You may notice that {consequences} also only appears when {probability} = 1.  The event of interest happens.

For one example, consider the Risk, “Injury from motorcycle crash”. 

If the Probability Of A Crash is reduced, then Risk is reduced; this can be achieved by either riding less often or by increasing the skill of the rider.

The Consequences Of The Crash will properly have a term which includes the severity of injury. There, it is obvious that protective gear, or selecting a lower travel speed will reduce the consequences, and therefore risk.

You have noticed that the level of reward changes constantly. When riding a motorcycle, this reward changes with perception, subjectively, rather than objectively. This is an important and key distinction: risk is NOT subject to your opinions or wishes, but reward is. You can confirm this for yourself by noting the countless times someone’s wishes failed to account for risks properly, and a tragedy occurred.

One may be as specific about risk as one wishes, so long as physics and logic are strictly observed.

There is another limitation to evaluating risk: your domain can be intruded upon by others. At the same time you are at risk of {event 1}, other events are also possible.

It is the job of the safety professional to anticipate these things, evaluate them for their influence and deflect as many as possible. These people have been ridiculously successful in their field – so much so that the exceptions are sometimes treated as dark humor.

There are a lot of situations in life, on TV and online that give us expectations of risk which are completely wrong. Count on physics. See this article on the “miracle”. We live in a physical world, regardless of our wishes or dreams.

So: "Safety" is the minimization of adverse risk by defending against adverse consequences.

Please remember that it is a goal which cannot actually be reached.

"Rape Culture"

It's in quotes because the membership is somehow determined by others.

Some people in the USA are convinced that there is a body of people which approves of the criminal assault of women, said assault being motivated by unchecked sexual desire. 
There is an immediate problem: depending on the source of the outrage, the definition of "assault" ranges from an "unwanted touch" by a friend to forcible rape by a stranger. 

Not only is the definition of these crimes flexible, depending on the whim of the offended, the responsibility for stopping rape always rests with men.

No one else. No one.

Due process and prosecution is not pursued as vigorously as condemnation because it requires proof, a burden on the affiant. This interferes with the expression of outrage by requiring logic to carry the legal point. Some of this is because the issue partly addresses behavior leading to assault, not the aftermath. 

It is lost on the outraged that men in general do not in fact approve of rape. The offended may have to have this pointed out to them, but men have wives, girlfriends and daughters, some of whom are worth the man's life in his own words. This, and the idea that some unwanted touch is not actually offensive to everyone, but considered a price to be paid for being sexually forward, increases the outrage of those who champion the idea that there is a "rape culture" that shelters and encourages offenders.

Some people think this is new. Others don't quite notice that when they assert independence and freedom of expression, added responsibility comes to them - at least not until it is forcefully explained to them, often by police detectives. This is an old and well-established concept that is hotly protested, though stupidly, because it's a societal law established by cause and effect: everyone interacting in a society will induce events that act on them.
I get accused of "victim-shaming" when I point out that there are times and places one should never wear provocative attire, and that these occasions are increasing in number due to public acceptance of crudeness and obscenity. 
Really? 
Not only are there places *I* cannot go whenever I please, no matter how I dress, if I tell you to look both ways before crossing the street, I'm just trying to help your dumb ass avoid being hit by a bus. You should be ashamed it didn't occur to you that you can be hurt, and someone else had to point out the blindingly obvious.

Let's back off for a bit, and think of human sexuality and explicit action.

There is ample evidence that the American public is seriously bipolar/schizophrenic when it comes to sex. Many people deny vigorously that they seek it, even in the act of seeking it. They turn up their nose at Playboy and those nasty and artificial sluts within, yet reach eagerly for a copy of Cosmopolitan which features an article on how to make your boyfriend go crazy with the latest sexual trick. 

The self-appointed moral superiors on Twitter even harassed adult film star August Ames until she killed herself - it was their business who she had sex with, you see, and she was alarmed about the very real risk of starring with a bisexual male who had worked outside of California's very protective studio environment. She was NOT to control her own body, Twitter shouted.

They confuse speech about sexual predation with real acts, insist that the possession of particular photographs victimize or "diminish" the people in them (even if no real persons are depicted), accept that the pro football player is wonderful when he has children out of wedlock, and defend the single mother who had no intention of ever providing a father for her multiple children. How empowered she is for having multiple sexual partners without commitment!
(You must forget that she does so with other people's money.)

They prohibit, by law, the possession of photographs on a cell phone by a person for whom the acts depicted in those photographs are actually legal.
The widely-acknowledged pursuit of casual sex by men is called an assortment of things, usually derogatory, but noting the pursuit of casual sex by women is called "victim shaming", even when it is objectively addressed. This is plainly irrational. You wear a seat belt because some drivers are dangerous. Will you stop that, and start insisting that other drivers should be taught not to hit you?

I think I've shown that logic is not part of the American sexual psyche. How about desire?

Desire is obvious and everywhere. Americans express this desire in every way with great vigor; for instance, Americans produce more obviously pornographic Web sites per capita than any other nation, and thousands more display "softcore" or less suggestive material (think, "paparazzi"). They spend money on this in amounts dwarfing the Top 5 businesses in America. On stage, we may find Beyoncé and Miley Cyrus, the formerly wholesome Hannah Montana, vigorously gyrating in simulated intercourse with entire crowds of men as they sing about how wonderful it is. Here is an actual lyric from Beyoncé:

"Can you lick my Skittles, it’s the sweetest in the middle/ Pink is the flavor, solve the riddle"

Some women claim this sort of thing is "empowering". How many of those decry "rape culture"? Do you look up to former POTUS and FLOTUS Barack and Michelle Obama? I suggest you should be deeply ashamed of them. This is what they think is just fine for the American public.

Media shows, not just tells, men and women how they are supposed to behave, independently of parental presence, desires and presentation. An immature "man" never trusted to ride a bicycle out of parental view learns from others that domination of another is the only way to express himself, so he emerges at night to do what people outside the home expect him to do with any female he finds.

An immature woman, convinced that she has a right to dress and act as she pleases, without consequences, acts in public as she has been shown.

Where is the "unwanted touch" now?

Both men and women frequent venues created specifically to enable customers to meet someone interested in "the hookup", the modern term for casual sex with any willing partner.
Willing? What?

Aside from media celebrities showing interested people that casual sex is good, they and certain people in public state and show that casual sex is expected if you frequent certain venues and advertise your intent in some ways. This is doubleplusungood for the chaste, the discerning, or those who simply wish to look their best when out and about - when such people mistake their fantasies about human dignity for reality: Others do not care what you think. They care what you show them.

No, wearing a miniskirt and high heels does not entitle anyone to put his or her hands on you - but how much of this is criminal behavior on the observer's part, and how much is a miscommunication, that no, YOUR clothing, generally known to be provocative, is NOT a signal of your desire to have sex, and soon?

Just who are you wearing provocative clothing for, in the venue you have selected? 
If you radiate success via your appearance, who sees that and wishes to join you at any cost?

Meanwhile, the definition of "unwanted touch" varies widely - most notably with the desirability of the person initiating the touch. Then - of course - subsequent events do not follow one or the other party's notions of what is expected. Have we forgotten how powerful sex is at disposing of reason? Did I not show above how the public is nuts about sex already?

Have you not noticed that gunfire sometimes occurs around nightclubs?

Can you actually claim that it is someone else's responsibility to see that you aren't there when that kind of violence occurs? What role do you actually have in supporting a venue that attracts such a thing?

At some colleges, there are actual forms to fill out by couples intending to have sex, in which specific acts are to be spelled out and permissions granted in writing before clothes come off.
How do you like that idea? Maybe there's an app?

Now: the issue is the criminal sexual assault of women. ALL of that is prosecutable. How do we determine whether entrapment and other factors apply? How do you determine the difference between premeditation and a crime of passion - a distinction actually made in murder trials? Where is the "unwanted touch" now? Can you even define it?

Sexual assault is a crime. That is not the question. Who defends you, though? 

YOU must defend yourself.
 
The Supreme Court, in Warren v. DC, stated clearly that police have NO DUTY to protect your person. There is no exception.

Read that again. There is NO EXCEPTION. Self-defense is YOUR job.

Meanwhile, rape still carries with it the stigma of the crime for many people, in different ways. In many cases, the victim's own "friends", "family" and "loved ones" remind the victim whenever possible that they are forever soiled and broken, never to take a free breath again. That must be overcome to see that the truly criminal get their just desserts.

As for those who are NOT criminal - but just misguided, maybe immature - it remains that the defense against them is STILL in the hands of the object of their attention. After all, how can you be an empowered woman - whatever that means - and still clamor for anonymous others to protect you, and that you are never at fault for engaging in the risky behavior of appearing sexually available to those whom you have no intention of allowing into your personal space, much less your life?

I will cheerfully defend you against criminal action. Please see to it that I am not the first to do so!

-----

Addendum: many activists on this issue can be seen defending Sharia law being practiced in the USA. Apparently, these persons have not noticed that women will be property, every bit a slave, to a male in that society.

It is to wonder.

Red Herring

The "red herring" is a distraction, meant to divert your attention from what is really happening to you.

Are you playing Pokémon Go?
Do you recognize what it is in addition to a game?

If you were intent on determining just what boundaries are defended, AND you wanted to see how far you can distort those boundaries by applying social pressure, you could not come up with a better solution than this game.

Consider: the game gets otherwise harmless people, with spare time, to chase icons placed at geographic locations. If some of these icons are placed within private boundaries, the consequences of trespassing 50 feet or so will be trivial to most players, who are typically very low on the socioeconomic scale and who have little to lose; there is also not much incentive to prosecute them.
With private property, a significant burden is placed on the property owner, in that he must not harm a trespasser for the simple act of being present on his property. This is true whether the trespasser is alone or in a group. Government assumes the power to deal deadly force for itself, but denies it to you in this case.

The program maps the progress of people seeking rewards playing the game, and in the process determines just which icons/characters are effectively out of reach due to defensive measures, like fences, "No Trespassing" signs or armed security. It returns this info and near-real-time photos of those locations to the server.

And all of this is accomplished with the unwitting cooperation of enthusiastic players with absolutely nothing else on their minds.
I have no idea who you are, Anonymous Criminal Mastermind, but you are a genius!

Free Will

Sometimes, you really do not have a choice...

It always amazes me when people talk about some emotional impact that causes them to change their opinion about a deity.
They never seem to realize that it's themselves, not the real world, around which their belief rotates. They'll claim that they have a choice about their belief, and that validates the "purity" of their choice.

But "Free Will" is not a religious concept. It does not depend on the existence of any deity, because "choice" is exercised between options apparent to the decisor regardless of origin - theoretical, "theological" or otherwise. You might be interested to know that in every case studied with logical rigor, what appears to be a chain of choices is actually predetermined.


How do you think magicians know where you're looking?

-----

There are a few misconceptions about the real world to clear out of the way.

First: the world is not truly random. If you were flipping a coin, the "universe" consists of only three possibilities: "heads", "tails", or the edge of the coin. In the real world, elements behave according to the laws of gravitation, magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces at a minimum.

What this means is that the world is not truly random. A truly random universe cannot have a law of physics.
And it means that "order" does not require guidance of any kind.


Second: the universe offers a realm of possibilities which is very large. Extremely large. Mind-bogglingly, staggeringly large. Take a number you think is big (but don't make a noise about "infinity" - it doesn't mean what you think it means), and double it. The actual mechanism is the interplay of the four fundamental forces noted above. In this world, it is still possible for there to be two fingerprint sets which are the same, two retinal patterns which are the same, and two Taj Mahals, one of which was spat out of an active volcano intact - because a) the Taj Mahal was assembled according to the laws of physics, b) the laws of physics do not depend on humans to exist, and c) all of space and all of time describes the venue in which that act can be played. That we cannot point to this having happened does not preclude it. That the consequences of discovering this event are nil does not invalidate the principle.

Third: the nature of the choices we make differ in magnitude. Yes, you can make a choice which has no consequence. You can make one which does have a consequence. You can make choices up to the point at which your abilities interfere with your means of making a choice. For instance, you can't choose to step outside and just jump to fly to the moon. That's not a choice because of the requirements natural laws make for you to travel.

Fourth: when you look at something, you are viewing processes at their current level of completion. This confuses people fond of noting that if they had done something different, the result, they say, would be different, too. This is not really the case. The alternatives are: different path, different result; different path, same result. That second part is suppressed, because people want to think they've figured out what went wrong so they can avoid such a mistake as they perceive from happening again. Look at a game of solitaire for an example. More than one sequence of play produces a solution, and more than one sequence produces a stoppage.
This principle even applies to process which do not involve you, or which differ with respect to your level of participation.

Fifth: the interference of an outside force can change the consequences of your decision(s), raising the magnitude of uncertainty beyond what is apparent.



In short:

• Free will has limits. 
• Free will is independent of religious affiliation. 
• Some of what you choose is insignificant. 
• Other people's decisions can affect you. 
• Order is a result of the combination and permutations of existing forces.


And, of course, you're not really getting a "do over!" for anything. The stream will have moved on.

"Tolerance"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Tolerance is one of those words curiously flexible of definition when used by the politically correct: we are supposed to allow others have their say.

But it is somehow forbidden to suggest that those others are wrong. Nuts. Completely badgers. A few fries short of a Happy Meal. Even when it is clear that they are.

So, I suggest that we not use this ridiculous euphemism for what the speaker wants - and then I get asked:
"Okay, offer a solution. What word do you propose we use instead of "tolerance"?"

I thought this was more obvious; pardon me. Answer: rather than a term with arbitrary definition prone to abuse, we should first look to how we conduct public affairs, and then insist that government is a business with the unique duty of treating everyone equally before the law and to guarantee the same set of rights to every individual.

Note then that individuals have the freedom to associate - they can do what they wish so long as no law is violated.

These two things are seperate.

We should show that government has no business acknowledging religion, because the principle of equal treatment before the law, combined with the difficulty of defining a religion, would bring government to a stop if it were to commemorate every religious holiday and practice.

Some say that "tolerance" isn't a code-word for anything, that it just means, "live and let live".
Not really.

I get this from debate on online forums, where some ardent Christians show they are fearful of losing influence in American government. It's not enough for them to practice their religion freely. They must have endorsement, and official approval of their preaching everywhere they go. It would be useful to take another tack than tell them "tolerance, tolerance" for not only the above-stated reason, but to disallow the next logical leap: that only those in a superior position are empowered to "tolerate" anything - such as the practice of those faiths lesser than Christianity, i.e., all of those other weird ideas.
The above-cited organizations, regardless of what you might think about their efficacy, are special interests with the aim of increasing their influence. They have no real "divine" mandate to do anything, and the exercise of such power as they might accumulate in government will be (is) exclusive, not inclusive.

Since when should bowing and scraping to a particular invisible entity determine whether you have a voice in government - and the attendant command of government force?