4 ms·
Point taken, but by this standard, we could defend drunk driving as overwhelmingly safe, war as overwhelmingly non-fatal, Vioxx as overwhelmingly heart-healthy,
by cltby 6y ago
Point taken, but by this standard, we could defend drunk driving as overwhelmingly safe, war as overwhelmingly non-fatal, Vioxx as overwhelmingly heart-healthy, ISPs as overwhelmingly customer friendly, etc etc.
It strikes me as pyschopathic to endorse actions that stand a 7% chance of ruining numerous innocent lives.
- triceratops 6y agoI didn't endorse any of the violent protests. But I don't understand your analogy at all. Drunk driving is never ok. Are you saying any kind of protest is never ok because it has a chance of turning violent? confused face
- cltby 6y agoThere are over 110M drunk driving incidents in the US every year and nearly 7M crashes, drunk or otherwise [1][2]. If we conservatively attribute all of these crashes to drunk drivers, we find that 94% of drunk driving causes no damage or injury. It is, to borrow your words, overwhelmingly safe. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im... [2] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-highway-safety#Motor%20vehicle%20crashes https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-highway-...
- triceratops 6y agoI ask you again, are you saying protests of any kind are never ok? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
- cltby 6y agoAll I ask is that your social movement be less injurious to society than being wasted behind the wheel.