Your original argument was essentially asserting that the OP was placing too-low a monetary value on human lives. You accused him of valuing his own leisure mor

Your original argument was essentially asserting that the OP was placing too-low a monetary value on human lives. You accused him of valuing his own leisure more than human lives, but then implied it's okay to value economic factors more than lives if the lives lost are sufficiently small (you implied this by suggesting that preventing car accidents is much less important cos it saves fewer lives). You hence implied some ratio between human lives and convenience/the economy; I was exploring that ratio.