4 ms·
But even if it were the former, what does that mean? That you were somehow "supposed" to die from it and were cheating by not dying? By that reasoning, many pe
by StavrosK 7y ago
But even if it were the former, what does that mean? That you were somehow "supposed" to die from it and were cheating by not dying?
By that reasoning, many people are supposed to be eaten by lions, they should get back to the jungle and learn to run better.
- Gibbon1 7y agoYou can think of there being two populations of people with health issues who on their way out. And those who are not on their way out. The difference is the former are going to show up in the statics in weeks to months. If an insult kills the former then they get clustered together in the death records. And after that the mortality rate should drop. Because they're dead already. If you don't see that drop afterwards it means the insult killed a bunch of people with health issues who weren't going to die anytime soon. An example I saw was of a WWI vet who had reduced lung capacity because he got gassed during the war. He died during the smog despite being 'okay' beforehand.
- StavrosK 7y agoSure, but that doesn't make either group "okay" to let die.
- Gibbon1 7y agoGoodness no.
- StavrosK 7y agoThen there's no point to that argument, save as many people as you can, and anyone you couldn't save is a tragedy.
- Gibbon1 7y agoPersonally I think the argument is hideous. And it's wrong as well. It's a 'bargaining' argument. Of the same genera of argument that justifies doing nothing about sex trafficking because it doesn't happen women and girls from respectable families.