5 ms·

I am willing to risk some deaths in exchange for technological improvements.

by someguydave 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago
You are free to risk your own, but not mine.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  He is not, in fact, free to risk his own, that’s the entire point.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Sure they are. They can be a test pilot, jump off a cliff in a flight suit, whatever they like. Don't risk my life though.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      > [you] can (…) jump off a cliff in a flight suit, This is in fact an argument against FAA: you can risk your life in many other ways in many other contexts not regulated by FAA, so why not be allowed to risk your own life in a regulated field?
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        Because it involves risking other people's lives? I think that's pretty obvious, so maybe I'm missing something. You also can't risk your own life by driving on the wrong side of the highway.
        xyzzyz 4y ago
        No, it does not involve any of that. You just assume that because it is convenient for your argument, but the truth is that there are plenty of ways to risk your own life flying with negligible risk to anyone else. Think, for example, about racing home made cars on salt flats: perfectly legal, even though you could conceivably hit someone who just happens to stroll by. Why can’t I race my home made plane over salt flats? Also, even if you follow FAA rules, you’re still risking other people lives. Pretty much every nontrivial activity is potentially lethal to bystanders, and flying is even more so. Despite that, flying is still allowed in general. You cannot argue “activity X that has some minor risk to you and nonzero risk to bystanders should be disallowed, because you must not expose bystanders to risk”, when you are already allowed to expose them to bigger risks in other ways in the context of the same regulated activity. You do not want to engage my actual argument, which is why you are trying to reframe it in a context where it is absurd. Of course I’m not suggesting that people should be allowed to drive 100 mph on the wrong side of busy freeway, and the reason you need to suggest that I do is that you are unable to engage what I actually say.
        wolverine876 4y ago
        > You just assume that because it is convenient for your argument You don't need to attack people or be paranoid about their motives; you could use a little trust and reason, maybe even a sense of humor. I didn't read the comment after that, but I can see italics and other signs of another angry, self-righteous outburst. I guess everyone else on the Internet does it, so why not? It's working so well for our society.
- someguydave 4y ago
  Oh so I guess you never drive anywhere then.

I am willing to risk some deaths in exchange for technological improvements.

wolverine876 4y ago

You are free to risk your own, but not mine.

xyzzyz 4y ago
He is not, in fact, free to risk his own, that’s the entire point.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Sure they are. They can be a test pilot, jump off a cliff in a flight suit, whatever they like. Don't risk my life though.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    > [you] can (…) jump off a cliff in a flight suit, This is in fact an argument against FAA: you can risk your life in many other ways in many other contexts not regulated by FAA, so why not be allowed to risk your own life in a regulated field?
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Because it involves risking other people's lives? I think that's pretty obvious, so maybe I'm missing something. You also can't risk your own life by driving on the wrong side of the highway.
      - xyzzyz 4y ago
        No, it does not involve any of that. You just assume that because it is convenient for your argument, but the truth is that there are plenty of ways to risk your own life flying with negligible risk to anyone else. Think, for example, about racing home made cars on salt flats: perfectly legal, even though you could conceivably hit someone who just happens to stroll by. Why can’t I race my home made plane over salt flats? Also, even if you follow FAA rules, you’re still risking other people lives. Pretty much every nontrivial activity is potentially lethal to bystanders, and flying is even more so. Despite that, flying is still allowed in general. You cannot argue “activity X that has some minor risk to you and nonzero risk to bystanders should be disallowed, because you must not expose bystanders to risk”, when you are already allowed to expose them to bigger risks in other ways in the context of the same regulated activity. You do not want to engage my actual argument, which is why you are trying to reframe it in a context where it is absurd. Of course I’m not suggesting that people should be allowed to drive 100 mph on the wrong side of busy freeway, and the reason you need to suggest that I do is that you are unable to engage what I actually say.
        wolverine876 4y ago
        > You just assume that because it is convenient for your argument You don't need to attack people or be paranoid about their motives; you could use a little trust and reason, maybe even a sense of humor. I didn't read the comment after that, but I can see italics and other signs of another angry, self-righteous outburst. I guess everyone else on the Internet does it, so why not? It's working so well for our society.
someguydave 4y ago
Oh so I guess you never drive anywhere then.