4 ms·

I really don't understand what point you tried to make. Claiming "you're the one responsible for your safety" really does not say anything, specially as you do

by rewmie 3y ago

I really don't understand what point you tried to make. Claiming "you're the one responsible for your safety" really does not say anything, specially as you do not have the context or situational awareness to know whether staying put or running away will save your life or get you killed. There are plenty of wildfires where individuals "responsible for their own safety" got themselves killed by driving straight into the expected path of the fire, against the express directions of emergency services. Would you call those cases a win in the libertarian books? It's very weird how this belief that your amateur ignorance is far superior to the informed guidance of professional emergency services can get any traction whatsoever.

omniglottal 3y ago
What's realy weird is your conversation existing in this context of how the official's blockade would kill those who obeyed it.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  But it's not - the article is not making the claim that only those who drove around the barricade survived. There were other survivors.
- Volundr 3y ago
  I don't think there is anything weird about it. It's not hard to find anecdotes where not wearing a seatbelt may have saved someone's life, when the drivers side of the car was crushed or punctured, but the driver was thrown to a different location. It doesn't mean in general it's a good idea to not wear your seatbelt, because you can't know in advance that's the kind of crash your going to get into. Similarly here ignoring a barricade in a wildfire is a great way to find yourself driving into the path of the fire, getting yourself killed, and there are plenty examples of people doing just that. The fact that in this case those placing the barriers got it wrong, and ignoring them may have saved lives does not make it a good idea to ignore such warnings in the general case.

by rewmie 3y ago

omniglottal 3y ago

What's realy weird is your conversation existing in this context of how the official's blockade would kill those who obeyed it.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
But it's not - the article is not making the claim that only those who drove around the barricade survived. There were other survivors.
Volundr 3y ago
I don't think there is anything weird about it. It's not hard to find anecdotes where not wearing a seatbelt may have saved someone's life, when the drivers side of the car was crushed or punctured, but the driver was thrown to a different location. It doesn't mean in general it's a good idea to not wear your seatbelt, because you can't know in advance that's the kind of crash your going to get into. Similarly here ignoring a barricade in a wildfire is a great way to find yourself driving into the path of the fire, getting yourself killed, and there are plenty examples of people doing just that. The fact that in this case those placing the barriers got it wrong, and ignoring them may have saved lives does not make it a good idea to ignore such warnings in the general case.