3 ms·

> Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance. It is also possible that two of you were ar

> Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance. It is also possible that two of you were arguing about different things despite seemingly talking about the same one. For example, you could be arguing that preventing people poisoning by lead is good, where the other person were arguing that people should bear more responsibility instead of pushing it on the third-party. I.e. I don't think the person you were arguing with was thinking "yeah, breathing lead is a good idea, let's fill the air with lead!". Perhaps I am too naive...

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
That would be a generous interpretation.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Overly generous. Much if not most of the damage of lead was done to unrelated third parties who did not necessarily have any relationship with those responsible for the use of lead. The person who makes that argument is telling those unrelated people, "wear hazmat gear 24/7 because somebody, somewhere may be killing you." The remainder of the damage from lead was done to employees, where the advice boils down to "don't work because your employer may be killing you."
  - hippich 5y ago
    Just for a second try to consider that you can not have the full mental picture of another person (simply because it would at the very least require brain at least twice as big as you have right now). So yes, in general, one should be very generous. Let's take someone with anarcho-capitalism views - the typical answer by an ancap to the lead poisoning problem will be - suing for damages. It is not that ancaps want everyone to get poisoned, they simply do not want to give so much power to a single entity to decide for them. In their opinion, the danger of tyranny is a greater threat to the people than lead poisoning. Or someone who is not necessary a proponent of free-market and such, but still sees a great danger to all the people of letting one entity to define rules. Not because they see that one particular entity as an evil (although trump's election could be such an example), but rather because that single entity is a single point of failure and when it fail - the whole nation fails. And in that mental model the danger of existence of such single point of failure is greater than danger of lead pollution. (Similarly, someone who is in favor of regulations is doing so not necessarily because they are trying to build some type of bad `X-ism`, but because they see a great danger if lead poisoning not stopped right away. And that danger in their opinion is greater than the danger of whatever that may come with regulations). I still believe that the majority of human beings are not evil and most of them would rather not harm someone. But I also realize that most humans will have slightly different priorities. When arguing, I think it is very important to argue about the same thing, otherwise agreement can not be achieved ever.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

That would be a generous interpretation.

mcguire 5y ago
Overly generous. Much if not most of the damage of lead was done to unrelated third parties who did not necessarily have any relationship with those responsible for the use of lead. The person who makes that argument is telling those unrelated people, "wear hazmat gear 24/7 because somebody, somewhere may be killing you." The remainder of the damage from lead was done to employees, where the advice boils down to "don't work because your employer may be killing you."
- hippich 5y ago
  Just for a second try to consider that you can not have the full mental picture of another person (simply because it would at the very least require brain at least twice as big as you have right now). So yes, in general, one should be very generous. Let's take someone with anarcho-capitalism views - the typical answer by an ancap to the lead poisoning problem will be - suing for damages. It is not that ancaps want everyone to get poisoned, they simply do not want to give so much power to a single entity to decide for them. In their opinion, the danger of tyranny is a greater threat to the people than lead poisoning. Or someone who is not necessary a proponent of free-market and such, but still sees a great danger to all the people of letting one entity to define rules. Not because they see that one particular entity as an evil (although trump's election could be such an example), but rather because that single entity is a single point of failure and when it fail - the whole nation fails. And in that mental model the danger of existence of such single point of failure is greater than danger of lead pollution. (Similarly, someone who is in favor of regulations is doing so not necessarily because they are trying to build some type of bad `X-ism`, but because they see a great danger if lead poisoning not stopped right away. And that danger in their opinion is greater than the danger of whatever that may come with regulations). I still believe that the majority of human beings are not evil and most of them would rather not harm someone. But I also realize that most humans will have slightly different priorities. When arguing, I think it is very important to argue about the same thing, otherwise agreement can not be achieved ever.