4 ms·
Seriously?
by yew 14y ago
Seriously?
- tptacek 14y agoYes. I thought saying "I think it's unlikely you actually think little kids should get Darwin awards" communicated that he wasn't writing callously, but just hadn't considered the CPSC's side.
- yew 14y agoMostly I just got the impression of someone trying to invoke condescension. Have you just never heard of cost-benefits? Otherwise, elaborating a bit more might make your points less opaque.
- shrughes 14y agocost/benefit? There are plenty of affordable substitute goods for toy magnets.
- yew 14y agoThat's one source of negative utility in this case. A general cost-benefit analysis of this policy decision would need to take into account quite a few more. Anyway, I was referring to tptacek's apparent failure to consider that someone might think some finite number of deaths acceptable.
- tptacek 14y agoI have no problem with that. The only issue I have is when people cast a data-driven policy decision about a relatively dangerous novelty item as some kind of ignorant overreach.
- yew 14y ago'Ignorant overreach' is a value judgment, even if it doesn't sound quite like one. We can disagree about which data is relevant and how it should drive policy, and end up right back where we started. The only ways out (that I can see) are to either talk about the disagreement itself or ignore each other and go back to lobbyist fights.
- yew 14y agoGiven your continued insistence on trying to change the argument to one about the elimination of all small round magnets, I can only assume that you're either trolling or just completely unwilling to think about other people's positions. You certainly don't come across as stupid enough for it to be anything else.
- yew 14y agoThat is to say, given the rather high quality of your other contributions to the site, I can't imagine that your posts here are only accidentally coming across as obtuse. Perhaps I'm wrong! It's been known to happen.