3 ms·
Respectfully, you're taking an extremely naive stance to a topic where others are trying to bring nuance. I think if you listen carefully, you'd learn something
by darkerside 3y ago
Respectfully, you're taking an extremely naive stance to a topic where others are trying to bring nuance. I think if you listen carefully, you'd learn something that will help you not just on this topic but in your life.
Logical fallacies like the base rate fallacy are real, and they fool all of us frequently, myself included.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
- taeric 3y agoBringing nuance is fine, but it is also an easy stalling tactic in progress. Clear improvements in safety are shown in the studies linked here. From an organization that has shown remarkable progress in safety over the years. And has been beset with such "nuance" since the beginning. Literally the same arguments were and are made against seat belts. Often. And is why I am not too willing to give way here. Now, if you are just saying, "I hope they keep their eyes on the data and are willing to keep improving," great. I agree. If you are trying to angle it that this is not a safety improvement, I will loudly disagree.
- darkerside 3y agoI think it is probably overall a safety improvement, and I think many of the arguments about losing control of your car are a bit overblown. But, there's something to them, and it rubs me the wrong way to ignore and dismiss those you disagree with. It's too easy to characterize a position you don't agree with as one that is operating in bad faith or ignorance.