3 ms·

In my opinion, I've taken no route. I've pointed out the dismissals in their stance. I agree that the route we've taken is bad, I agree things should change a

In my opinion, I've taken no route. I've pointed out the dismissals in their stance. I agree that the route we've taken is bad, I agree things should change and this study should inform those changes. However, I'm not going to minimize the death nor avoid the suffering. I'm at least explicit in my belief that we should be minimizing death as much as possible, fairness to the owners be damned.

jaywalk 6y ago
Minimizing death as much as possible isn't and cannot ever be a goal. There's a balance that must be struck.
- nullstyle 6y ago
  Why not?
  - dahdum 6y ago
    Virtually every decision we make as a society is a trade off, from highway speed limits to school funding. We never optimize for the lowest possible risk of death.
    - nullstyle 6y ago
      This is missing the point I was trying to make. Of course everything is a tradeoff, I'm not trying to claim we are post scarcity. I'm making a point about aspects of the "trading space" -- for lack of a better term -- being poorly represented by the discussions here. In my opinion, I think we are doing a disservice by trying to focus on the things we can be dispassionate about -- as an example arguing about what portion of our nation we want to abandon to nature while maintaining and actively suppressing the aspects of this calamity that stoke moral outrage. Maybe I'm just the crazy techno-hippy here, but it says something to me about this community when none of the responses posted above touch on the most ideologically charged statement I made: "fairness to the owners be damned". Blind spots abound, and it's a shame we can't have a more interesting discussion. I'm curious about your opinions: What is the point of civilization if not to work at minimizing death and suffering (or to maximize well-being and liberty, same-same)? What is of higher value to you, and what do you see as the point of all this?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

jaywalk 6y ago

Minimizing death as much as possible isn't and cannot ever be a goal. There's a balance that must be struck.

nullstyle 6y ago
Why not?
- dahdum 6y ago
  Virtually every decision we make as a society is a trade off, from highway speed limits to school funding. We never optimize for the lowest possible risk of death.
  - nullstyle 6y ago
    This is missing the point I was trying to make. Of course everything is a tradeoff, I'm not trying to claim we are post scarcity. I'm making a point about aspects of the "trading space" -- for lack of a better term -- being poorly represented by the discussions here. In my opinion, I think we are doing a disservice by trying to focus on the things we can be dispassionate about -- as an example arguing about what portion of our nation we want to abandon to nature while maintaining and actively suppressing the aspects of this calamity that stoke moral outrage. Maybe I'm just the crazy techno-hippy here, but it says something to me about this community when none of the responses posted above touch on the most ideologically charged statement I made: "fairness to the owners be damned". Blind spots abound, and it's a shame we can't have a more interesting discussion. I'm curious about your opinions: What is the point of civilization if not to work at minimizing death and suffering (or to maximize well-being and liberty, same-same)? What is of higher value to you, and what do you see as the point of all this?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]