5 ms·
> the cost of being able to have these magnets on your desk is probably dozens or hundreds of kids getting very sick. I'd like to live in a society willing to
by hnaccy 8y ago
> the cost of being able to have these magnets on your desk is probably dozens or hundreds of kids getting very sick.
I'd like to live in a society willing to pay that price.
- tptacek 8y agoRespectfully: wouldn't really believing that make you kind of an asshole? The number of children I would need to see hospitalized to give up a desk toy is pretty low. I could be misreading you, but it sounds like you're stipulating that kids are getting hurt, and saying you'd be happier if we could hurt some reasonable amount of kids to get new desk toys. That is a different and more disturbing argument from the one that says that we should be able to have the desk toys and avoid the harm, too.
- JackCh 8y ago> "Respectfully: wouldn't really believing that make you kind of an asshole?" Don't you think asking such a question is not a terribly subtle way of calling somebody an asshole?
- andybak 8y agoThe emphasis to my eye was on the word "really". tptacek is suggesting that author of the previous post should consider whether they really mean that or if he they have merely taken a stance without thinking it through clearly. Very different both in tone and implication from "You're an asshole for saying that".
- JackCh 8y agoSaying "If you honestly mean that then you're an asshole" is just a round-about way of calling somebody an asshole while providing them with an out; it's a method of insulting people to get them to change their stance. Where I come from, it's considered rude.
- tptacek 8y agoIn fact, I wrote it the other way first, and but when I read it on the screen, it looked a lot like I was saying they were an asshole, and so ratcheted it back, since that wasn't what I was trying to say.
- JackCh 8y agoYou were saying they were an asshole, in both versions. Trying to be coy about it doesn't change it. I'm not sure why you bothered to be coy about it since you regularly get away with incivility on this site.
- jaggederest 8y agoSame argument should ban coal burning power plants, hot dogs, and automobiles. All of them kill astronomically more children than any toy, even taking into account their generally more practical uses. There are substitutes.
- tptacek 8y agoNo, your rebuttal misses that there's a numerator and a denominator in mine: hazard and utility.
- jaggederest 8y agoI'm taking that into account actually. That's why I said "taking into account their more practical uses".
- tallanvor 8y agoNo, believing that doesn't make a person an asshole. It's entirely fair to debate what number of injuries or deaths is acceptable, but it's not fair to call a person an asshole just because they come up with a different number than you do. Society makes these decisions every day. We accept a large number of injuries and deaths due to cars because we feel they are still a net benefit (which may be debatable when public transportation might be a better option to reduce the numbers). We make these decisions around gun ownership - and obviously there is a large amount of controversy there - at least in the US. Most importantly, accepting that some children will be injured or killed by a product doesn't mean that the person doesn't care, and won't take steps to use and store the product responsibly so as to prevent injury or death.
- killaken2000 8y agoI'm with you. It's difficult for some people to understand, I suppose.
- jonhendry18 8y ago"I'd like to live in a society willing to pay that price." Well, you're lucky because Trump's making it happen.