5 ms·

I'm fine with people dying during construction _if_ we foresee the deaths. What I'm not fine with is killing people with lead/arsenic/asbestos/plastics because

I'm fine with people dying during construction _if_ we foresee the deaths. What I'm not fine with is killing people with lead/arsenic/asbestos/plastics because we didn't put new tech through it's paces before we deployed it en-mass. We live in a world that is both too conservative and not anywhere near conservative enough.

Tsiklon 4y ago
That’s a very callous and detached way to consider human life. It’s exactly the sort of thinking that led to the execution of the Ford Pinto. Wherein the bookkeepers determined that the number of deaths and cost of wrongful death settlements would be less than the cost of recalls to fix the fatal design error in the car.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  The most American thing in the world is to worry about the 4 deaths per year caused by the faults in that car while ignoring the other 40,000 deaths a year caused by cars in general.
  - Tsiklon 4y ago
    I’m not American, this is whataboutery and absurd to argue, everyone wants safer roads. The example of the Pinto is famous worldwide; famous for the disgusting disregard Ford had for it’s own customers. That it would rather send its own customers to a painful death than have the decency to pay to fix the fault it was aware of, is abhorrent. This behaviour resulted in a known unsafe product remaining on sale long after the fault was discovered - the people who died were not qualified to understand the additional risk the car had to it’s occupants.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      A product which when it works as expected kills orders of magnitude more people than the faulty version. This is the definition of putting a band aid on a decapitation.
Cipater 4y ago
>I'm fine with people dying during construction _if_ we foresee the deaths. Because that's other people dying. >What I'm not fine with is killing people with lead/arsenic/asbestos/plastics because we didn't put new tech through it's paces before we deployed it en-mass. Because this affects you.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  >Because that's other people dying. My first job out of high school was on an old school oil rig: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Jn2BU4eyVHQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Jn2BU4eyVHQ What worried me about it wasn't the fact I could lose a hand, but that more than half the chemicals we were getting smeared in daily weren't properly tested for their long term effects on humans.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    The distinction you're trying to draw seems unclear to me. Why is bodily harm from chemicals worse than bodily harm from mechanical forces?
    - cactacea 4y ago
      Worse isn't the distinction, clarity of danger is. If your hands didn't get crushed at work that day then you can stop worrying about your hands when you go home. Not the case with whatever he was swimming in.

Tsiklon 4y ago

That’s a very callous and detached way to consider human life. It’s exactly the sort of thinking that led to the execution of the Ford Pinto. Wherein the bookkeepers determined that the number of deaths and cost of wrongful death settlements would be less than the cost of recalls to fix the fatal design error in the car.

thrown_22 4y ago
The most American thing in the world is to worry about the 4 deaths per year caused by the faults in that car while ignoring the other 40,000 deaths a year caused by cars in general.
- Tsiklon 4y ago
  I’m not American, this is whataboutery and absurd to argue, everyone wants safer roads. The example of the Pinto is famous worldwide; famous for the disgusting disregard Ford had for it’s own customers. That it would rather send its own customers to a painful death than have the decency to pay to fix the fault it was aware of, is abhorrent. This behaviour resulted in a known unsafe product remaining on sale long after the fault was discovered - the people who died were not qualified to understand the additional risk the car had to it’s occupants.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    A product which when it works as expected kills orders of magnitude more people than the faulty version. This is the definition of putting a band aid on a decapitation.

Cipater 4y ago

>I'm fine with people dying during construction _if_ we foresee the deaths. Because that's other people dying. >What I'm not fine with is killing people with lead/arsenic/asbestos/plastics because we didn't put new tech through it's paces before we deployed it en-mass. Because this affects you.

thrown_22 4y ago
>Because that's other people dying. My first job out of high school was on an old school oil rig: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Jn2BU4eyVHQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Jn2BU4eyVHQ What worried me about it wasn't the fact I could lose a hand, but that more than half the chemicals we were getting smeared in daily weren't properly tested for their long term effects on humans.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  The distinction you're trying to draw seems unclear to me. Why is bodily harm from chemicals worse than bodily harm from mechanical forces?
  - cactacea 4y ago
    Worse isn't the distinction, clarity of danger is. If your hands didn't get crushed at work that day then you can stop worrying about your hands when you go home. Not the case with whatever he was swimming in.