3 ms·

So your entire argument is centered around the semantics of "war on car fatalities"? In that case, there's not really anything for me to add, other than that I

So your entire argument is centered around the semantics of "war on car fatalities"? In that case, there's not really anything for me to add, other than that I think you are taking a very uncharitable [0] view of the original post. [0] http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

shkkmo 11y ago
I noted that a set of statistics was being misused as evidence for the specific claim being made and added a source that supported that claim, abeit less strongly. That was 'uncharitable'? You then 'charitably' missed my point twice, and argued against a strawman. You followed that up by 'charitably' accused me of only arguing semantics rather than responding to any of my actual points.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure I understand your argument fine. Allow me to attempt a summary: The original graphic shows that driving is less dangerous now than ever before. However, it does not take into account the prevalence of driving, which is also higher. Therefore, the original graphic is "misleading", because "traffic fatalities" is the combination of the danger of driving and its prevalence. Given this current understanding of your point, my only argument now is that I believe that is an uncharitable view of the original post. I argue this because the view is entirely based on that singular interpretation of "war on traffic fatalities". A charitable approach is entirely based on attempting to view an argument with suspension of your own beliefs and interpretations in order to understand the other party's. Through such, common understanding can be worked towards. I'm also sorry that you feel that I have been uncharitable to you. I honestly do believe your argument is entirely centered around the semantics of "war on traffic fatalities". The information you provided in your graphic is very good, and the point you are making is not wrong. I didn't have any issues at all until your response to cbr's original post, which is where I feel you began arguing semantics over content. I feel this way because cbr was also not wrong, and if anything was an equally good summary as what I stated above. And yet you still seemed to take an issue with it.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Your suggestion that I should have reinterpreted what harryh said, does not makes sense given the context of the post he was responding to: > Terrorism has never been a problem. The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. Where is our war on cars? My main point, and reason for making the distinction between metrics is explained here: "However, if we had spent more effort in trying to reduce unnecessary and high-risk driving we would see a larger reduction in traffic deaths. This includes solutions like walkable cities, adequate public transit, and higher penalties for drivers engaged in risky behavior that cause fatalities. Focusing purely on deaths per mile excludes those types of interventions. Thus you can't use that measure to claim a 'war on car fatalities'."

shkkmo 11y ago

I noted that a set of statistics was being misused as evidence for the specific claim being made and added a source that supported that claim, abeit less strongly. That was 'uncharitable'? You then 'charitably' missed my point twice, and argued against a strawman. You followed that up by 'charitably' accused me of only arguing semantics rather than responding to any of my actual points.

jdmichal 11y ago
I'm pretty sure I understand your argument fine. Allow me to attempt a summary: The original graphic shows that driving is less dangerous now than ever before. However, it does not take into account the prevalence of driving, which is also higher. Therefore, the original graphic is "misleading", because "traffic fatalities" is the combination of the danger of driving and its prevalence. Given this current understanding of your point, my only argument now is that I believe that is an uncharitable view of the original post. I argue this because the view is entirely based on that singular interpretation of "war on traffic fatalities". A charitable approach is entirely based on attempting to view an argument with suspension of your own beliefs and interpretations in order to understand the other party's. Through such, common understanding can be worked towards. I'm also sorry that you feel that I have been uncharitable to you. I honestly do believe your argument is entirely centered around the semantics of "war on traffic fatalities". The information you provided in your graphic is very good, and the point you are making is not wrong. I didn't have any issues at all until your response to cbr's original post, which is where I feel you began arguing semantics over content. I feel this way because cbr was also not wrong, and if anything was an equally good summary as what I stated above. And yet you still seemed to take an issue with it.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Your suggestion that I should have reinterpreted what harryh said, does not makes sense given the context of the post he was responding to: > Terrorism has never been a problem. The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. Where is our war on cars? My main point, and reason for making the distinction between metrics is explained here: "However, if we had spent more effort in trying to reduce unnecessary and high-risk driving we would see a larger reduction in traffic deaths. This includes solutions like walkable cities, adequate public transit, and higher penalties for drivers engaged in risky behavior that cause fatalities. Focusing purely on deaths per mile excludes those types of interventions. Thus you can't use that measure to claim a 'war on car fatalities'."