4 ms·

Your comment, however, implies a naivete that we should trust others - to do only what they say they will, with things that are precious to us. The people shoo

by ColanR 7y ago

Your comment, however, implies a naivete that we should trust others - to do only what they say they will, with things that are precious to us. The people shooting the video are frauds, but allowing the video to be shot at all was naive at best and stupid at worst.

progval 7y ago
> implies a naivete that we should trust others - to do only what they say they will, with things that are precious to us. We trust strangers all the time. For example when driving, because we expect dangerous people to be sufficiently de-incentived from driving. Or when doing groceries, because we expect companies not to poison us. Or when riding in a stranger's car, even though they could rob and/or harm.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  terrible examples, in all instances we have laws in place and people who's jobs it is to ensure the safety. Your point has some legitimacy, but your examples are severely flawed.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - progval 7y ago
    > in all instances we have laws in place and people who's jobs it is to ensure the safety Yes, and that was exactly my point. We (can) have laws and enforcement for the issue this article is about too.
- ColanR 7y ago
  > when driving We actually exhibit a low level of trust, given the extreme safety measures we build into our cars and the segregation of our highway corridors. 'Trusting strangers' would look like cars without airbags, and the removal of speed limits in residential areas. We do not trust food companies not to poison us. We require an accounting of every ingredient that goes into every piece of food we eat, and companies are held accountable to that list. If you think we trust food companies, read about the reaction to Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle) > Or when riding in a stranger's car, even though they could rob and/or harm. Isn't that the running joke? That harm does happen, and somehow we still roll the dice and use those services. I'm just surprised that we trust pharma companies as much as we do.

by ColanR 7y ago

progval 7y ago

> implies a naivete that we should trust others - to do only what they say they will, with things that are precious to us. We trust strangers all the time. For example when driving, because we expect dangerous people to be sufficiently de-incentived from driving. Or when doing groceries, because we expect companies not to poison us. Or when riding in a stranger's car, even though they could rob and/or harm.

celticmusic 7y ago
terrible examples, in all instances we have laws in place and people who's jobs it is to ensure the safety. Your point has some legitimacy, but your examples are severely flawed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- progval 7y ago
  > in all instances we have laws in place and people who's jobs it is to ensure the safety Yes, and that was exactly my point. We (can) have laws and enforcement for the issue this article is about too.
ColanR 7y ago
> when driving We actually exhibit a low level of trust, given the extreme safety measures we build into our cars and the segregation of our highway corridors. 'Trusting strangers' would look like cars without airbags, and the removal of speed limits in residential areas. We do not trust food companies not to poison us. We require an accounting of every ingredient that goes into every piece of food we eat, and companies are held accountable to that list. If you think we trust food companies, read about the reaction to Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle) > Or when riding in a stranger's car, even though they could rob and/or harm. Isn't that the running joke? That harm does happen, and somehow we still roll the dice and use those services. I'm just surprised that we trust pharma companies as much as we do.