5 ms·

What about non-drunk driving? You still have a non zero risk of killing pedestrians or other drivers/passengers. There's risk in everything we do, including fo

What about non-drunk driving? You still have a non zero risk of killing pedestrians or other drivers/passengers. There's risk in everything we do, including for other people. What amount of risk is acceptable is a subjective choice.

lm28469 6y ago
Going to an event with dozens of other people during covid, especially in the current situation, is like driving on a highway full of walking people. It's not a "it might be dangerous" situation, it's a "it's definitely going to end bad" situation
3JPLW 6y ago
This is why speed limits are prudent. This is why masks and gathering limits are prudent.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
And liability is part of that - that's why auto insurance is mandatory. There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency.
- timr 6y ago
  "There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency." And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Strawman, I never mentioned homicide by gun.
    - timr 6y ago
      This entire subthread is in response to just such a comparison: "Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun." And I quoted you -- you make a comparison to homicide. Comparing catching a virus to homicide of any sort is...extreme.
      - tshaddox 6y ago
        Firstly, that's not the same commenter. Secondly, the drunk driving and gun examples were clearly provided merely as examples where "my body, my choice" doesn't apply.
        timr 6y ago
        I know it's not the same commenter. If you're going to argue that gun homicide and drunk driving are examples that should also be followed here, you are making the analogy between catching a virus and those examples.
        tshaddox 6y ago
        Yes, the analogy is being made, and the scope of the analogy is clearly that "my body, my choice" does not apply to either thing.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not. That was not intended as a comparison, but as an obvious example of where "my body, my choice" clearly does not apply to making a slight movement of your index finger.
    - timr 6y ago
      You can call it whatever you want, but you're using the analogy to make an argument, and the analogy is extreme.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        The analogy is intended to demonstrate that the implied claim that "'my body, my choice' must extend to everything or it's hypocritical" is extreme.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        timr 6y ago
        You're arguing that this situation should be an exception to the usual rules of personal liberty that we all take for granted -- I should be able to require you to wear a mask and not meet with family members, because $disease is deadly and transmissable. OP pointed out that this is contradictory to the usual rhetoric on abortion. Your response was that we make just such an exception for guns and drunk driving. The implication, therefore, is that this is of such an equivalent moral imperative, that the same reactions are justified here. You may not want to be drawing the analogy, but if you aren't, there's no point in raising the subject at all.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > OP pointed out that this is contradictory to the usual rhetoric on abortion. I'm pointing out that it's not, just like drunk driving and moving your finger when it happens to be connected to a gun aren't "pro-choice" moments. "My body, my choice" doesn't apply in the same fashion when other people's rights are also involved. (And, to head-off the "nuh-uh", pro-choicers tend to fall down on the "no" side of fetal personhood.)

lm28469 6y ago

Going to an event with dozens of other people during covid, especially in the current situation, is like driving on a highway full of walking people. It's not a "it might be dangerous" situation, it's a "it's definitely going to end bad" situation

3JPLW 6y ago

This is why speed limits are prudent. This is why masks and gathering limits are prudent.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

And liability is part of that - that's why auto insurance is mandatory. There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency.

timr 6y ago
"There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency." And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Strawman, I never mentioned homicide by gun.
  - timr 6y ago
    This entire subthread is in response to just such a comparison: "Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun." And I quoted you -- you make a comparison to homicide. Comparing catching a virus to homicide of any sort is...extreme.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      Firstly, that's not the same commenter. Secondly, the drunk driving and gun examples were clearly provided merely as examples where "my body, my choice" doesn't apply.
      - timr 6y ago
        I know it's not the same commenter. If you're going to argue that gun homicide and drunk driving are examples that should also be followed here, you are making the analogy between catching a virus and those examples.
        tshaddox 6y ago
        Yes, the analogy is being made, and the scope of the analogy is clearly that "my body, my choice" does not apply to either thing.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not. That was not intended as a comparison, but as an obvious example of where "my body, my choice" clearly does not apply to making a slight movement of your index finger.
  - timr 6y ago
    You can call it whatever you want, but you're using the analogy to make an argument, and the analogy is extreme.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      The analogy is intended to demonstrate that the implied claim that "'my body, my choice' must extend to everything or it's hypocritical" is extreme.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - timr 6y ago
        You're arguing that this situation should be an exception to the usual rules of personal liberty that we all take for granted -- I should be able to require you to wear a mask and not meet with family members, because $disease is deadly and transmissable. OP pointed out that this is contradictory to the usual rhetoric on abortion. Your response was that we make just such an exception for guns and drunk driving. The implication, therefore, is that this is of such an equivalent moral imperative, that the same reactions are justified here. You may not want to be drawing the analogy, but if you aren't, there's no point in raising the subject at all.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > OP pointed out that this is contradictory to the usual rhetoric on abortion. I'm pointing out that it's not, just like drunk driving and moving your finger when it happens to be connected to a gun aren't "pro-choice" moments. "My body, my choice" doesn't apply in the same fashion when other people's rights are also involved. (And, to head-off the "nuh-uh", pro-choicers tend to fall down on the "no" side of fetal personhood.)