3 ms·
This is an idiotic strawman argument. People don't get killed by trains and bicycles in remotely near the numbers that they do by cars, especially when you cou
by magduf 7y ago
This is an idiotic strawman argument. People don't get killed by trains and bicycles in remotely near the numbers that they do by cars, especially when you count all the people killed in car accidents.
Your entire argument is "we can't completely eliminate ALL deaths from any vehicle of any kind, so we need to keep our society car-based."
- the8472 7y ago> People don't get killed by trains and bicycles in remotely near the numbers that they do by cars, especially when you count all the people killed in car accidents. I never said the amount is equal. > Your entire argument is "we can't completely eliminate ALL deaths from any vehicle of any kind, so we need to keep our society car-based." Not at all. Neither did I say we cannot reduce the number. I said too many is not a useful statement. That is all this is about. Too many does not tell us what the correct tradeoff is. My concern is that people only see a number and want it go down to zero without taking pareto efficiency into account.