5 ms·

I wonder if we will be allowed to share this information in the future in someone knew a love one died in for profit hospital that might provoke violence agains

I wonder if we will be allowed to share this information in the future in someone knew a love one died in for profit hospital that might provoke violence against feel market believers.

overfeed 1y ago
Isn't trading higher profit for +11% more deaths also violence?
- immibis 1y ago
  No, only direct fist-on-face contact is violence. Indirect violence doesn't exist.
- tptacek 1y ago
  To the extent it is, people are universally guilty of it, unless you can find a clear bright line for which selfish(/rational) decisions are violent and which aren't. Is it some number of hops from the person who dies that makes the difference?
  - SpaceNoodled 1y ago
    There's a clear chain of responsibility.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      That's just begging the question. What's the clear chain?
      - SpaceNoodled 1y ago
        Do you think that these policies just appear out of thin air, and enforce themselves?
  - keybored 1y ago
    We are all guilty of living in our own society? No, some people are hundreds of times more responsible.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      I wonder why your opinion is so unpopular around here. Surely the hapless landscaper is substantially less responsible for any violence, death, etc, etc, he benefits from than say a lobbyist who gets paid to get the laws to favor his employer. We don't need to figure out an exact formula in order to be able to conclude some parties leverage violence far more than others.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    > To the extent it is, people are universally guilty of it, unless you can find a clear bright line for which selfish(/rational) We all ingest some level of arsenic, and are "universally" exposed to radioactivity, but just because something is falls on a continuous spectrum, doesn't mean all levels are equal, there is a point where it becomes too much. That point will not be the same for everyone, but it exists. > Is it some number of hops from the person who dies that makes the difference? Not according to the Nuremberg trials.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Right, so if that's something you believe, regarding Nuremberg, then you're basically acknowledging my point.
      - overfeed 1y ago
        No, because you're insinuating that since we're all responsible for some micromorts[1], somehow our culpability is the same as those who are some responsible for hundreds or thousands of morts[0], which is equating across 10 orders of magnitude in risk to human lives. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort 2. Is that what you call 10^6 micromorts?
        tptacek 1y ago
        That's not actually what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that we make specific choices that have material mortality costs to the world, not that simply by taking up space in our living room we're responsible for some number of nanomorts or whatever. Speeding on the road isn't the most important of those choices, but it's usefully easy to reason about, so start there. If you want to get closer to the culpability that a PE firm has, think about all the ways in which we deliberately benefit from global inequality. All of this can be (is!) bad. But it's not violence in any meaningful sense of the term.
- bcrosby95 1y ago
  I wouldn't call it violence, but I think it's A Problem when companies have two viable policies, and they choose the one that is known by them to statistically cause more deaths. On top of that, people will give them social cover for making this decision. Because, y'know, its just capitalism/business or whatever. It's not like they murdered someone, they just told their worker bees to do something they knew would kill more people than they had to.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > Isn't trading higher profit for +11% more deaths also violence? I have a friend who firmly believes that speed limits higher than 50MPH are violence because they lead to increased deaths. He argues that if we cared about people's lives we would impose a strict 50MPH limit on the roads and even force all cars to top out at 50MPH from the factory. There are millions of tradeoffs in the world where we could reduce deaths, but there's never and endpoint where it's truly done. It's really easy to imagine revenge on PE firms by crushing their profits for a noble cause, but the conversation becomes a lot murkier when the impact starts hitting closer to your own paycheck or lifestyle.
  - Muromec 1y ago
    In residential area it is at the very least negligence on the part of authorities who set the limit
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      The claim was that 50mph should be the highest limit anywhere, including freeways. Combined with a hard 50mph limit imposed on vehicles. You buy a new car, it can't go faster than 50mph, period. The movement has roots in Ralph Nader going back to the 50s https://nader.org/1970/12/11/the-american-automobile-designed-for-death/ https://nader.org/1970/12/11/the-american-automobile-designe...
      - Muromec 1y ago
        That's a little bit out there if taken out of context. On my street the limit is 15 KM/h, on most city roads it's 30 (again, KM/h, not MPH), but on the actual highways where only cars are present and where you don't necessarily need to be, the limit is over a 100. Now I can probably understand how one can take such radical position, when living in a place that doesn't restrict cars as much as they are restricted here. It's like being so much disillusioned with US that USSR propaganda starts to be appealing and belieaveble. I guess?
        1y ago
- MSFT_Edging 1y ago
  I think the replies splitting hairs on what is violence and what isn't is missing the point. This is a hospital. A building designed for differentiating life and death and(hopefully) attempting to steer towards the former. This isn't a speed limit or some other market where there's no ethical consumption. One doesn't choose going to a hospital. It's a place you go when you are at metaphorical gunpoint.

I wonder if we will be allowed to share this information in the future in someone knew a love one died in for profit hospital that might provoke violence against feel market believers.

overfeed 1y ago

Isn't trading higher profit for +11% more deaths also violence?

immibis 1y ago
No, only direct fist-on-face contact is violence. Indirect violence doesn't exist.
tptacek 1y ago
To the extent it is, people are universally guilty of it, unless you can find a clear bright line for which selfish(/rational) decisions are violent and which aren't. Is it some number of hops from the person who dies that makes the difference?
- SpaceNoodled 1y ago
  There's a clear chain of responsibility.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    That's just begging the question. What's the clear chain?
    - SpaceNoodled 1y ago
      Do you think that these policies just appear out of thin air, and enforce themselves?
- keybored 1y ago
  We are all guilty of living in our own society? No, some people are hundreds of times more responsible.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    I wonder why your opinion is so unpopular around here. Surely the hapless landscaper is substantially less responsible for any violence, death, etc, etc, he benefits from than say a lobbyist who gets paid to get the laws to favor his employer. We don't need to figure out an exact formula in order to be able to conclude some parties leverage violence far more than others.
- overfeed 1y ago
  > To the extent it is, people are universally guilty of it, unless you can find a clear bright line for which selfish(/rational) We all ingest some level of arsenic, and are "universally" exposed to radioactivity, but just because something is falls on a continuous spectrum, doesn't mean all levels are equal, there is a point where it becomes too much. That point will not be the same for everyone, but it exists. > Is it some number of hops from the person who dies that makes the difference? Not according to the Nuremberg trials.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Right, so if that's something you believe, regarding Nuremberg, then you're basically acknowledging my point.
    - overfeed 1y ago
      No, because you're insinuating that since we're all responsible for some micromorts[1], somehow our culpability is the same as those who are some responsible for hundreds or thousands of morts[0], which is equating across 10 orders of magnitude in risk to human lives. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort 2. Is that what you call 10^6 micromorts?
      - tptacek 1y ago
        That's not actually what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that we make specific choices that have material mortality costs to the world, not that simply by taking up space in our living room we're responsible for some number of nanomorts or whatever. Speeding on the road isn't the most important of those choices, but it's usefully easy to reason about, so start there. If you want to get closer to the culpability that a PE firm has, think about all the ways in which we deliberately benefit from global inequality. All of this can be (is!) bad. But it's not violence in any meaningful sense of the term.
bcrosby95 1y ago
I wouldn't call it violence, but I think it's A Problem when companies have two viable policies, and they choose the one that is known by them to statistically cause more deaths. On top of that, people will give them social cover for making this decision. Because, y'know, its just capitalism/business or whatever. It's not like they murdered someone, they just told their worker bees to do something they knew would kill more people than they had to.
Aurornis 1y ago
> Isn't trading higher profit for +11% more deaths also violence? I have a friend who firmly believes that speed limits higher than 50MPH are violence because they lead to increased deaths. He argues that if we cared about people's lives we would impose a strict 50MPH limit on the roads and even force all cars to top out at 50MPH from the factory. There are millions of tradeoffs in the world where we could reduce deaths, but there's never and endpoint where it's truly done. It's really easy to imagine revenge on PE firms by crushing their profits for a noble cause, but the conversation becomes a lot murkier when the impact starts hitting closer to your own paycheck or lifestyle.
- Muromec 1y ago
  In residential area it is at the very least negligence on the part of authorities who set the limit
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    The claim was that 50mph should be the highest limit anywhere, including freeways. Combined with a hard 50mph limit imposed on vehicles. You buy a new car, it can't go faster than 50mph, period. The movement has roots in Ralph Nader going back to the 50s https://nader.org/1970/12/11/the-american-automobile-designed-for-death/ https://nader.org/1970/12/11/the-american-automobile-designe...
    - Muromec 1y ago
      That's a little bit out there if taken out of context. On my street the limit is 15 KM/h, on most city roads it's 30 (again, KM/h, not MPH), but on the actual highways where only cars are present and where you don't necessarily need to be, the limit is over a 100. Now I can probably understand how one can take such radical position, when living in a place that doesn't restrict cars as much as they are restricted here. It's like being so much disillusioned with US that USSR propaganda starts to be appealing and belieaveble. I guess?
      - 1y ago
MSFT_Edging 1y ago
I think the replies splitting hairs on what is violence and what isn't is missing the point. This is a hospital. A building designed for differentiating life and death and(hopefully) attempting to steer towards the former. This isn't a speed limit or some other market where there's no ethical consumption. One doesn't choose going to a hospital. It's a place you go when you are at metaphorical gunpoint.