4 ms·

> 1 in 5 people currently have a disability. 100% of people will have some form of disability in their lifetime. That would mean no one will ever die in their

> 1 in 5 people currently have a disability. 100% of people will have some form of disability in their lifetime. That would mean no one will ever die in their best abilities. I think that is a claim that can easily proven wrong, for any reasonable definition of best abilities.

crdrost 3y ago
I think if you went even more pedantic you would come back again to the idea that it's right, the idea being that someone dies an untimely death, fine, but it takes like 5 minutes for them to die and several of those minutes they are technically disabled. So then you get ultra pedantic about, maybe that doesn't make sense if you are vaporized over a timescale less than a human reaction time, 100ms or so, and probably that has happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or suicide bombers, or when the twin towers fell, or when a submarine catastrophically collapses, or certain falling deaths perhaps... But likely less than 0.5% of the people who have been alive, so when rounding to the nearest percent you would indeed say 100%. All of that is for lols, probably the original quote attached some sort of caveat that was lost in the note-taking, but even without it it's reasonable for the reader to be expected to add the necessary caveat, “ignoring people who happen to very suddenly die in the prime of their lives,...”
- psychoslave 3y ago
  Sure in some sense, and we can always be over pedantic in any topic. Maybe I felt in the trap here, though I still feel that the sentence is over selling the author point, which is not the end is the world either. What I mean is, from what I get, the author point is that we shouldn't disregard people with permanent disabilities, as it's a faith we will all eventually reach. While I agree with the ethical goal of not disregarding people with some disabilities, I wouldn't take the path of founding that on average human faith. All the more the point is not how long will we agonize in an obviously near death situation, but how comfortably and socially integrated we can live once we have some disability, taking for granted that yes we will all necessary have the luxe of such a situation.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pseudalopex 3y ago
100% of people are born unable to care for themselves if you want to be pedantic.
maxbond 3y ago
"100%" doesn't mean "there are no nitpicky edge cases," it means, "this includes you, yes you, this is relevant to you." It is completely normal to use language that is not entirely precise. It isn't a criticism to point this out.

crdrost 3y ago

I think if you went even more pedantic you would come back again to the idea that it's right, the idea being that someone dies an untimely death, fine, but it takes like 5 minutes for them to die and several of those minutes they are technically disabled. So then you get ultra pedantic about, maybe that doesn't make sense if you are vaporized over a timescale less than a human reaction time, 100ms or so, and probably that has happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or suicide bombers, or when the twin towers fell, or when a submarine catastrophically collapses, or certain falling deaths perhaps... But likely less than 0.5% of the people who have been alive, so when rounding to the nearest percent you would indeed say 100%. All of that is for lols, probably the original quote attached some sort of caveat that was lost in the note-taking, but even without it it's reasonable for the reader to be expected to add the necessary caveat, “ignoring people who happen to very suddenly die in the prime of their lives,...”

psychoslave 3y ago
Sure in some sense, and we can always be over pedantic in any topic. Maybe I felt in the trap here, though I still feel that the sentence is over selling the author point, which is not the end is the world either. What I mean is, from what I get, the author point is that we shouldn't disregard people with permanent disabilities, as it's a faith we will all eventually reach. While I agree with the ethical goal of not disregarding people with some disabilities, I wouldn't take the path of founding that on average human faith. All the more the point is not how long will we agonize in an obviously near death situation, but how comfortably and socially integrated we can live once we have some disability, taking for granted that yes we will all necessary have the luxe of such a situation.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pseudalopex 3y ago

100% of people are born unable to care for themselves if you want to be pedantic.

maxbond 3y ago

"100%" doesn't mean "there are no nitpicky edge cases," it means, "this includes you, yes you, this is relevant to you." It is completely normal to use language that is not entirely precise. It isn't a criticism to point this out.