3 ms·

Again, I have not stated that I accept 35,000 deaths per year so capitalism can continue on its merry way. I again invite you to quote where I have said so, if

Again, I have not stated that I accept 35,000 deaths per year so capitalism can continue on its merry way. I again invite you to quote where I have said so, if you don't believe me. I have simply stated that the difference in scale means that an argument that justifies 35,000 deaths cannot justify 5,250,000+ deaths.

bhupy 7y ago
> I have simply stated that the difference in scale means that an argument that justifies 35,000 deaths cannot justify 5,250,000+ deaths. at some point the number of deaths is high enough that you decide that "the scale is different and this can no longer be justified". I'm simply stating that this limit is arbitrary, and debatable.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  I never said that any number of deaths was acceptable. Try again.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    Okay, so you might hold an absolutist position on the acceptable number of deaths, that the acceptable number of deaths is exactly 0. Assuming that is the case, do you really believe that people don't have the moral right to entertain any amount of deaths for "economic activity"? If so, this is the least enforceable violation of your version of "human rights", possibly in the history of humanity.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Since when does enforceability have any impact on whether something is a human right or not? One aspect of "human rights" is that they are universal. They apply to both me, you, and everyone else on the planet equally. And, it is entirely reasonable to believe that nobody has the right to end my life but me. So, yes, I believe 0 is the correct number of lives to be sacrificed for economic activity, even though we don't come close to that practically.
      - bhupy 7y ago
        And it’s totally fine for you to have that point of view. You have to accept that I and the majority of others have a different point of view (I’m not an absolutist about it).

bhupy 7y ago

> I have simply stated that the difference in scale means that an argument that justifies 35,000 deaths cannot justify 5,250,000+ deaths. at some point the number of deaths is high enough that you decide that "the scale is different and this can no longer be justified". I'm simply stating that this limit is arbitrary, and debatable.

pmiller2 7y ago
I never said that any number of deaths was acceptable. Try again.
- bhupy 7y ago
  Okay, so you might hold an absolutist position on the acceptable number of deaths, that the acceptable number of deaths is exactly 0. Assuming that is the case, do you really believe that people don't have the moral right to entertain any amount of deaths for "economic activity"? If so, this is the least enforceable violation of your version of "human rights", possibly in the history of humanity.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Since when does enforceability have any impact on whether something is a human right or not? One aspect of "human rights" is that they are universal. They apply to both me, you, and everyone else on the planet equally. And, it is entirely reasonable to believe that nobody has the right to end my life but me. So, yes, I believe 0 is the correct number of lives to be sacrificed for economic activity, even though we don't come close to that practically.
    - bhupy 7y ago
      And it’s totally fine for you to have that point of view. You have to accept that I and the majority of others have a different point of view (I’m not an absolutist about it).