4 ms·

> nonsensical It might be nonsensical for you, but for the sort of people we are discussing they ditch the seatbelt and if they ever have any thought about red

by GDC7 5y ago

> nonsensical It might be nonsensical for you, but for the sort of people we are discussing they ditch the seatbelt and if they ever have any thought about reducing the risk of random accidents they try and doing it with Horsepower and braking capabilities, which are the things which come as an added bonus to the type of cars they enjoy driving such as Muscle cars, Lambos, 'Vettes etc. It's a very big world out there, if you have a variety of interests you'll find that this sort of people are amazing to be around while doing some activities in which the typical rationalists and left-brain people would be such a drag.

crooked-v 5y ago
> It might be nonsensical for you, but for the sort of people we are discussing they ditch the seatbelt I don't see how that's actually a counterargument to my statement. > while doing some activities in which the typical rationalists and left-brain people would be such a drag What, are you trying to argue now that people who wear seatbelts are boring? This sounds like the "bad guy" in some 90s car safety education video for kids.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > I don't see how that's actually a counterargument to my statement. It is. The burden of the proof is always on the person or the organization that cares about something deeply enough that wants to perpetuate such behavior. E.g. Vaccines or seatbelts or reduction in sugary drinks or whatever. The failure to do so is theirs not the people whose behavior they are trying to change because they are fine with the present day status of handling things. If you fail, you only have yourself to blame. You don't get to say "Ugh. their bahavior is nonsensical!" > What, are you trying to argue now that people who wear seatbelts are boring? Well...yeah? If you wear a seatbelt while driving in the city chances are that once we get to the club you won't drink, which also means you won't lose inhibitions, which also means that you won't pay for drinks, which also means that you won't find female companionship for the night. I mean it's not some new discovery. People who play it safe are boring. Nature can't be fooled, there is no substitute for taking risks and having things going your way, that's the best outcome among the many possible outcomes and that's why we refer to those people as "cool" , "charismatic" or "projecting an aura"
  - cecilpl2 5y ago
    "People who wear seatbelts are losers who don't get laid". Now I've seen it all.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    > The burden of the proof is always on the person or the organization that cares about something deeply enough that wants to perpetuate such behavior. The benefits of both seatbelts and vaccines, not just to a single person but to everyone else around them, are proven and well-documented. You're also still avoiding the initial point, which is that it's nonsensical to claim that people only wear seatbelts out of fear. > Well...yeah? If you wear a seatbelt while driving in the city chances are that once we get to the club you won't drink, which also means you won't lose inhibitions, which also means that you won't pay for drinks, which also means that you won't find female companionship for the night. I'm sure since you're talking about burden of proof you have some data to back this up, right?
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > The benefits of both seatbelts and vaccines, not just to a single person but to everyone else around them, are proven and well-documented. Well that's the physics and the immunology part of the science. You still got to do the social science. If you fail that then all the progress done in the lab is moot. The burden of the proof is there even more strongly for the social science. If the organization fails to obtain the desired behavior when the lab work proves that such behavior provides an advantage then that is an even worse failure from the organization. They should look at what they did wrong with their communication.

by GDC7 5y ago

crooked-v 5y ago

> It might be nonsensical for you, but for the sort of people we are discussing they ditch the seatbelt I don't see how that's actually a counterargument to my statement. > while doing some activities in which the typical rationalists and left-brain people would be such a drag What, are you trying to argue now that people who wear seatbelts are boring? This sounds like the "bad guy" in some 90s car safety education video for kids.

GDC7 5y ago
> I don't see how that's actually a counterargument to my statement. It is. The burden of the proof is always on the person or the organization that cares about something deeply enough that wants to perpetuate such behavior. E.g. Vaccines or seatbelts or reduction in sugary drinks or whatever. The failure to do so is theirs not the people whose behavior they are trying to change because they are fine with the present day status of handling things. If you fail, you only have yourself to blame. You don't get to say "Ugh. their bahavior is nonsensical!" > What, are you trying to argue now that people who wear seatbelts are boring? Well...yeah? If you wear a seatbelt while driving in the city chances are that once we get to the club you won't drink, which also means you won't lose inhibitions, which also means that you won't pay for drinks, which also means that you won't find female companionship for the night. I mean it's not some new discovery. People who play it safe are boring. Nature can't be fooled, there is no substitute for taking risks and having things going your way, that's the best outcome among the many possible outcomes and that's why we refer to those people as "cool" , "charismatic" or "projecting an aura"
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  "People who wear seatbelts are losers who don't get laid". Now I've seen it all.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  > The burden of the proof is always on the person or the organization that cares about something deeply enough that wants to perpetuate such behavior. The benefits of both seatbelts and vaccines, not just to a single person but to everyone else around them, are proven and well-documented. You're also still avoiding the initial point, which is that it's nonsensical to claim that people only wear seatbelts out of fear. > Well...yeah? If you wear a seatbelt while driving in the city chances are that once we get to the club you won't drink, which also means you won't lose inhibitions, which also means that you won't pay for drinks, which also means that you won't find female companionship for the night. I'm sure since you're talking about burden of proof you have some data to back this up, right?
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > The benefits of both seatbelts and vaccines, not just to a single person but to everyone else around them, are proven and well-documented. Well that's the physics and the immunology part of the science. You still got to do the social science. If you fail that then all the progress done in the lab is moot. The burden of the proof is there even more strongly for the social science. If the organization fails to obtain the desired behavior when the lab work proves that such behavior provides an advantage then that is an even worse failure from the organization. They should look at what they did wrong with their communication.