4 ms·
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that of course comparing the effects of Intervention A on one person vs the effects of Intervention B on everyone wil
by tbrownaw 1y ago
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that of course comparing the effects of Intervention A on one person vs the effects of Intervention B on everyone will give a predetermined result. And that a proper comparison must either have an individual on both sides, or the whole group on both sides.
- bb88 1y agoAwesome. I'm glad you said, "I". My argument is that my carb intake is irrelevant compared to nuclear proliferation. My argument goes like this. Carb intake does probably lower life significantly, but doesn't lead to potentially worse outcomes compared to say nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. And if you believe that "carb intake" is a rational choice and not an urge made by the lizard brain then I would argue it's my choice -- my freedom -- and well get a boundary. OTOH, a nuclear incident would affect a broad swath of people across all ages. And it's not their choice.
- modo_mario 1y agoYou argue like it's one or the other which is genuinely inane. >Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. It affects people before more severe medical consequences start setting in too.