3 ms·

We could stand to do a bit more raising of the profile of the externalities of such events. The emissions regulations that VW was cheating to get around exist

We could stand to do a bit more raising of the profile of the externalities of such events. The emissions regulations that VW was cheating to get around exist for the purpose of improving air quality. The improved air quality leads to less air quality induced health problems. Which in turn leads to longer, higher quality lives for people in Europe. VW wasn't going around and directly pouring vials of poison into people's food like some kind of cartoon villain. But they absolutely were intentionally lying about the emissions of their vehicles, and those emissions absolutely have impacts to human health.

alt227 2y ago
Its fair to say that VW intentially pushed the emissions of their vehicles over the recomended limit, which potentially affects the health of millions of people. Saying VW directly shortened the lifespan of millions is just Hyperbole.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >Saying VW directly shortened the lifespan of millions is just Hyperbole. Why? What's the difference when the outcome is the same? Your malicious actions still lead to deaths. "I didn't directly murder someone, I just didn't clean the radioactive residue form his house because that would have cost me time and money so now he's dead."
  - alt227 2y ago
    Its not the same though is it. In your example there can be a cause of death identified as radiation poising which can be attributed to the residue in his house. With the VW example, you cant quantify it at all. How much has it shortened peoples lives? 2 seconds? 10 years? nanoseconds? Its not a direct correlation, theres no graph you can plot with emissions against length of life, and so claiming that there is a direct correlation is Hyperbole.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > With the VW example, you cant quantify it at all. How much has it shortened peoples lives? 2 seconds? 10 years? nanoseconds? Its not a direct correlation, theres no graph you can plot with emissions against length of life https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/NOx%20Health%20Fact%20Sheet%20global%202post.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/NOx%20Health%20Fact%... > According to new research published in Nature, NOX from diesel vehicle exhaust was linked to 107,600 premature deaths worldwide in 2015. Of these, ~38,000 are attributable to excess NOX emissions. Sounds like the graphs do exist. (Obviously VW is only a fraction of those specific numbers.)
      - alt227 2y ago
        I really tried to give it a go, and accept what this link is trying to say. But when you read it, literally everything used in creating those numbers is an estimation. Ther are no measurements whatsoever.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  What point are you trying to make here? people pick the weirdest battles
  - alt227 2y ago
    Then why comment? Im just shooting the breeze with random opinions on a public forum. Isnt that what we are all doing?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  It's simply extending the line to the obvious next dot. It gets more uncomfortable to think about so we often don't want to, but what exactly do you think is the eventual outcome of those effects on the health of millions of people? Think of the many factors that combine to determine when someone dies of "old age" or "natural causes". Think of the extra effort millions of bodies have spent dealing with the pollutants directly and the effects those pollutants have on those bodies. Someone in VW's position could say, "well our pollutants were one cause among many" for any specific death. But they were part of the math. They contributed a share and lied about the size of it. They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions of Europeans.
  - alt227 2y ago
    Before the phrase was 'VW shortened the lifespan of millions'. Now after my posts you have changed that to 'They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions' They are in no way the same sentences. Your second one agrees with my point, your first one doesnt. Yes, they contributed, definitely. Did they directly cause a shortening of peoples lives, no they didnt.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      LMAO what? Those sentences are pretty equivalent. Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Tell each of them to cut a bit of the string off. Each person in the group has now participated in the shortening of the string. You can, completely accurately and honestly, say both of these sentences: "Person 1 shortened the length of the string." "Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string." These statements are not in any way in conflict. You're creating a meaningless difference then insisting that I index on that difference. I refuse to play that game.
      - alt227 2y ago
        OK, lets take it apart then. > I refuse to play that game You seem to be playing it pretty well from where Im standing! > insisting that I index on that difference Looking back on my post, I havent insisted anything. I didnt even ask you anything. I just clarified my point. It was your choice to retort. > Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Why do you insist on trying to reduce my opinion, which you do not understand, into metaphors which have no relevance? > "Person 1 shortened the length of the string." This statement implies a direct influence, ie Person 1 cut or broke the string, therefore directly shortened it. > "Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string." This statement is much more vague. What part did person 1 contribute? Did they make the scissors which cut the string? Did they mine the metal for thoise scissors? Did they hypnotise or manipulate the will of the person who did actually cut the string? There is nuance here, and you dont seem to be understanding it at all.

alt227 2y ago

Its fair to say that VW intentially pushed the emissions of their vehicles over the recomended limit, which potentially affects the health of millions of people. Saying VW directly shortened the lifespan of millions is just Hyperbole.

Rinzler89 2y ago
>Saying VW directly shortened the lifespan of millions is just Hyperbole. Why? What's the difference when the outcome is the same? Your malicious actions still lead to deaths. "I didn't directly murder someone, I just didn't clean the radioactive residue form his house because that would have cost me time and money so now he's dead."
- alt227 2y ago
  Its not the same though is it. In your example there can be a cause of death identified as radiation poising which can be attributed to the residue in his house. With the VW example, you cant quantify it at all. How much has it shortened peoples lives? 2 seconds? 10 years? nanoseconds? Its not a direct correlation, theres no graph you can plot with emissions against length of life, and so claiming that there is a direct correlation is Hyperbole.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > With the VW example, you cant quantify it at all. How much has it shortened peoples lives? 2 seconds? 10 years? nanoseconds? Its not a direct correlation, theres no graph you can plot with emissions against length of life https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/NOx%20Health%20Fact%20Sheet%20global%202post.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/NOx%20Health%20Fact%... > According to new research published in Nature, NOX from diesel vehicle exhaust was linked to 107,600 premature deaths worldwide in 2015. Of these, ~38,000 are attributable to excess NOX emissions. Sounds like the graphs do exist. (Obviously VW is only a fraction of those specific numbers.)
    - alt227 2y ago
      I really tried to give it a go, and accept what this link is trying to say. But when you read it, literally everything used in creating those numbers is an estimation. Ther are no measurements whatsoever.
snapcaster 2y ago
What point are you trying to make here? people pick the weirdest battles
- alt227 2y ago
  Then why comment? Im just shooting the breeze with random opinions on a public forum. Isnt that what we are all doing?
sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
It's simply extending the line to the obvious next dot. It gets more uncomfortable to think about so we often don't want to, but what exactly do you think is the eventual outcome of those effects on the health of millions of people? Think of the many factors that combine to determine when someone dies of "old age" or "natural causes". Think of the extra effort millions of bodies have spent dealing with the pollutants directly and the effects those pollutants have on those bodies. Someone in VW's position could say, "well our pollutants were one cause among many" for any specific death. But they were part of the math. They contributed a share and lied about the size of it. They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions of Europeans.
- alt227 2y ago
  Before the phrase was 'VW shortened the lifespan of millions'. Now after my posts you have changed that to 'They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions' They are in no way the same sentences. Your second one agrees with my point, your first one doesnt. Yes, they contributed, definitely. Did they directly cause a shortening of peoples lives, no they didnt.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    LMAO what? Those sentences are pretty equivalent. Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Tell each of them to cut a bit of the string off. Each person in the group has now participated in the shortening of the string. You can, completely accurately and honestly, say both of these sentences: "Person 1 shortened the length of the string." "Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string." These statements are not in any way in conflict. You're creating a meaningless difference then insisting that I index on that difference. I refuse to play that game.
    - alt227 2y ago
      OK, lets take it apart then. > I refuse to play that game You seem to be playing it pretty well from where Im standing! > insisting that I index on that difference Looking back on my post, I havent insisted anything. I didnt even ask you anything. I just clarified my point. It was your choice to retort. > Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Why do you insist on trying to reduce my opinion, which you do not understand, into metaphors which have no relevance? > "Person 1 shortened the length of the string." This statement implies a direct influence, ie Person 1 cut or broke the string, therefore directly shortened it. > "Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string." This statement is much more vague. What part did person 1 contribute? Did they make the scissors which cut the string? Did they mine the metal for thoise scissors? Did they hypnotise or manipulate the will of the person who did actually cut the string? There is nuance here, and you dont seem to be understanding it at all.