4 ms·

Yes these are clearly identical situations with no difference at all! /s

drstewart 3y ago
You're right, in one situation you have people rejecting a product with years of research vetted by regulators around the world because they don't like the business practices and politics of the organizations behind it. On the other, you have... the same exact thing. Whoops. They are the same.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Assuming you're not being intentionally obtuse: the FDA makes some decisions purely out of politics (e.g. many schedule 1 drugs) and they make other decisions based on higher tolerance of risk in certain situations. Perhaps the FAA should slap a black box warning on the 737 to regain credibility.
  - drstewart 3y ago
    You're arguing my point. Both anti-vaxxers and anti-Maxers believe the regulatory agencies are corrupt and politicking, therefore they substitute their own scientific opinions where they feel like it.
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      Nah. The FDA offers a nuanced approach making criticism far less reasonable. The FAA presents the flying public with an all or nothing approach. It's entirely reasonable to criticize the regulatory capture that got us here. It's also quite reasonable to be dissatisfied with the status quo at the FAA for the time being. If we'd seen more thalidomide babies, or if people were being harmed en masse by vaccines perhaps things would be more comparable. But they're not so they're not. Besides, the FAA is explicitly tasked with promoting the business interests of American companies while also promoting safety. That's quite different than the FDA, and a more reasonable comparison would be between the FDA and NTSB.
      - drstewart 3y ago
        Nah. If we'd seen more Max deaths you'd be right, but the hundreds of thousands dead from the opioid crisis or the millions of lives destroyed from the war in drugs due to marijuana being on schedule one shows the FDA is beholden to the pharma and prison industries. Not trustworthy.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  I'm not rejecting the physics of airtravel, or that planes can in principle be engineered and built safely.

You're right, in one situation you have people rejecting a product with years of research vetted by regulators around the world because they don't like the business practices and politics of the organizations behind it. On the other, you have... the same exact thing. Whoops. They are the same.

inferiorhuman 3y ago
Assuming you're not being intentionally obtuse: the FDA makes some decisions purely out of politics (e.g. many schedule 1 drugs) and they make other decisions based on higher tolerance of risk in certain situations. Perhaps the FAA should slap a black box warning on the 737 to regain credibility.
- drstewart 3y ago
  You're arguing my point. Both anti-vaxxers and anti-Maxers believe the regulatory agencies are corrupt and politicking, therefore they substitute their own scientific opinions where they feel like it.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Nah. The FDA offers a nuanced approach making criticism far less reasonable. The FAA presents the flying public with an all or nothing approach. It's entirely reasonable to criticize the regulatory capture that got us here. It's also quite reasonable to be dissatisfied with the status quo at the FAA for the time being. If we'd seen more thalidomide babies, or if people were being harmed en masse by vaccines perhaps things would be more comparable. But they're not so they're not. Besides, the FAA is explicitly tasked with promoting the business interests of American companies while also promoting safety. That's quite different than the FDA, and a more reasonable comparison would be between the FDA and NTSB.
    - drstewart 3y ago
      Nah. If we'd seen more Max deaths you'd be right, but the hundreds of thousands dead from the opioid crisis or the millions of lives destroyed from the war in drugs due to marijuana being on schedule one shows the FDA is beholden to the pharma and prison industries. Not trustworthy.
lamontcg 3y ago
I'm not rejecting the physics of airtravel, or that planes can in principle be engineered and built safely.