3 ms·
> So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ. Not sure if an appeal to emotion
by phil21 10y ago
> So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ.
Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN. While I certainly sympathize with those parents this is the absolute wrong way to go about implementing policy or law.
Most of US law that has eroded our rights over the years has been enacted by similar emotional arguments. I prefer my policymakers to be sober dispassionate people who look at raw data to make as an informed decision as possible.
- rootlocus 10y ago> Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN. Killing a human being is not the same as killing a process. We live in a society because it's safer. We have a constitution, rights, and laws to protect us (at least in theory). The optimal law would save as many lives as possible. I don't see how saving lives makes a poor heuristic for implementing laws.
- ameister14 10y ago>The optimal law would save as many lives as possible. If that were true, cars would be illegal. We're operating in a framework of likely accidents, benefit to society and overall cost. There is an optimal law that saves as many laws as reasonably possible, and in most cases it has already been implemented and is being enforced. Where it has not or is not, sure.