4 ms·

Alcohol kills. The sun kills. You cant buy anything without a prop 65 warning. Tripping on stairs kills. Medications have risky side effects. Bacon and sausage

Alcohol kills. The sun kills. You cant buy anything without a prop 65 warning. Tripping on stairs kills. Medications have risky side effects. Bacon and sausage and sugar and fat and cholesterol kill. At some point, if we want to stop all needless deaths, instead of "toxic individuality" we won't have any individuality at all, because pretty much any decision at all will be limited to the collective's approved single option. Edit: i am not trying to dismiss the dangers inherent in cars. I am, however, saying that I absolutely hate the term "toxic X" because it fundamentally trivializes the other side of the argument.

macintux 5y ago
Some life choices have a disproportionately negative external impact. Eating yourself to death has a net negative for society, but nothing compared to crashing your car at 70mph into a school bus.
- rhacker 5y ago
  Actually eating oneself to death doesn't really have a net negative on society. In fact the opposite. We don't HAVE to allocate money the way we do, the eating problems aren't the cause of bad monetary policy. In fact, there are signs that suggest the "bad monetary policy" is beneficial, since we've opted to keep it that way. But I have no argument against the car slamming into a bus.
- TheAceOfHearts 5y ago
  Not the best example, as school busses are actually some of the safest vehicles on the road. https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety
Sharlin 5y ago
The moral context is very different when we're talking about killing others rather than yourself by your actions.
whakim 5y ago
I'm not sure the point of the article is that we need to get rid of all forms of preventable death (and I think the "toxic individualism" is kind of a side point). As you rightly point out, it's unrealistic (and likely undesirable) to do that. I do think the article has a valid point in that we've structured many aspects of our society around one of the leading causes of preventable death, and that doesn't get enough attention.

macintux 5y ago

Some life choices have a disproportionately negative external impact. Eating yourself to death has a net negative for society, but nothing compared to crashing your car at 70mph into a school bus.

rhacker 5y ago
Actually eating oneself to death doesn't really have a net negative on society. In fact the opposite. We don't HAVE to allocate money the way we do, the eating problems aren't the cause of bad monetary policy. In fact, there are signs that suggest the "bad monetary policy" is beneficial, since we've opted to keep it that way. But I have no argument against the car slamming into a bus.
TheAceOfHearts 5y ago
Not the best example, as school busses are actually some of the safest vehicles on the road. https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety

Sharlin 5y ago

The moral context is very different when we're talking about killing others rather than yourself by your actions.

whakim 5y ago

I'm not sure the point of the article is that we need to get rid of all forms of preventable death (and I think the "toxic individualism" is kind of a side point). As you rightly point out, it's unrealistic (and likely undesirable) to do that. I do think the article has a valid point in that we've structured many aspects of our society around one of the leading causes of preventable death, and that doesn't get enough attention.