36 ms·

Wow. I agree with RMS 100% on this point. (Should I be worried?) For all of our wonderful attributes, humans are irrational.

by asciimo 14y ago

bane 14y ago
No, look at the logic from the other angle, by RMSs idiotic logic, because the flu kills more people, the correct response to the attack should have been Bostonians gone about their merry business, but in Hazmat suits to avoid infection.
- thedufer 14y ago
  I honestly don't think any sane person could, in good faith, come to that conclusion after reading this. His point is that we don't do things like walk around in Hazmat suits to avoid diseases because that would be completely absurd, so why isn't it more absurd to shut down an entire major city for hours over a threat that is orders of magnitude less dangerous?
  - bane 14y ago
    No, walking around in Hazmat suits would be completely rational. Logic dictates you need to start with the higher probability safety issues and start working down so long as a mitigation strategy exists for each type of event. Flu is the 9th leading cause of death in the U.S. A Hazmat suit is a perfect and completely rational barrier that completely eliminates that issue from your life - it's better and more full proof than a flu shot. Here's the list and mitigation strategies if any: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm 1 - Heart disease: don't eat foodstuffs that are known to increase the probability of heart disease, get plenty of cardio. 2 - Cancer: avoid all known carcinogens, refined sugars, etc. stay out of the sun (made easy by being in a Hazmat suit all the time) 3 - Chronic lower respiratory diseases: avoid exposure to transmission vectors, hazmat suit solves this. 4 - Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): Similar to 1 5 - Accidents (unintentional injuries): Don't participate in risky movements or behaviors, wear a helmet at all times, keep a comprehensive first aid kit on your person with all modern emergency responder equipment. Follow the buddy rule, but don't stay too close, stay away from high probability of injury transport methods. 6 - Alzheimer's disease: no known mitigation strategy 7 - Diabetes: mostly diet, see #1 and 4 8 - Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: no known strategy, but don't eat foods that might challenge your kidneys 9 - Influenza and Pneumonia: Hazmat suit, solved 10 - Intentional self-harm (suicide): don't do this, solved and then way down the list... NNN - Death by terrorism with a probability so low that even during an active terrorist attack RMSs conjecture is to just keep on keeping on with your normal day-to-day routine.
    - u2328 14y ago
      You're taking RMS's statement out of context. His point was that we not allow fear to overwhelm our senses so that we trade individual rights for security in police states, saying: "Every death or injury is a sad thing, but the fact is that many happen every day, and we should not let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others. Let's make an effort not to get bent out of shape about them, so that we can resist when people try to cite them as an excuse for tyranny." You're picking out his statement of proportionality as some sort of logical flaw in his argument, but you're completely missing the main point.
      - emily37 14y ago
        This main point is ridiculous. Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionately to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionately more than the death of a stranger? A reasonable statement would have been, "Let's not let these deaths be cited as an excuse for tyranny." But what he said was more along the lines of, "Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny." Why should we let the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny influence our emotional reactions to the deaths of friends and colleagues? Instead, let's react however is natural to these deaths, and at the same time ensure that we don't stand for fear-mongering and security theater.
        u2328 14y ago
        Well, that's a different issue than what Bain was attempting to argue, but I'll indulge. You said, "Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionally to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionally more than the death of a stranger?" You're misrepresenting what he said. He never compared the death of a stranger to the death of a loved one. What he said is that it's silly to raise the tragedy the those who lost their lives in Boston to those who lost their lives in Texas this week. All premature death is a tragedy, but I didn't know anyone personally in Boston or Texas. So why should the deaths of those in Boston be more prolific to me than those that died in Texas? You said, "But what he said was more along the lines of, 'Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny.'" What he actually said was, "Every death or injury is a sad thing, but the fact is that many happen every day, and we should not let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others. Let's make an effort not to get bent out of shape about them, so that we can resist when people try to cite them as an excuse for tyranny." You can't change the words he used to misrepresent his argument because you didn't appreciate his bluntness. I'll admit, RMS is a very emotionally detached person, but that doesn't allow the opportunity to bend his words so that it makes it easier for you to shame him.
u2328 14y ago
Should I be worried? Depends; you'll probably not want to share this point with strangers. Since we've been repeatedly traumatized as a nation over the fears of 'terrorism' by war-hawks and sensationalist media outlets, many Americans expect a similar level of emotional reactionism from their compatriots. And when they don't get it from you, they turn on you quickly. I don't think it's healthy, but I guess it's understandable from all the mental abuse we've received as a nation since 9/11. RMS is out there on a lot of things, and he's very blunt with his opinions, but his emotional detachment does serve him well sometimes. The first step of healing from that mental disease we have now is step back a bit and realize the problem. We are addicted to fear.
- asciimo 14y ago
  Ha, thanks for the advice! (Maybe that's why Facebook friend count is plummeting...) In retrospect, the worry stemmed from the possibility of contracting RMS's personality traits. Irrational, indeed.

Wow. I agree with RMS 100% on this point. (Should I be worried?) For all of our wonderful attributes, humans are irrational.

by asciimo 14y ago

Wow. I agree with RMS 100% on this point. (Should I be worried?) For all of our wonderful attributes, humans are irrational.

bane 14y ago

No, look at the logic from the other angle, by RMSs idiotic logic, because the flu kills more people, the correct response to the attack should have been Bostonians gone about their merry business, but in Hazmat suits to avoid infection.

thedufer 14y ago
I honestly don't think any sane person could, in good faith, come to that conclusion after reading this. His point is that we don't do things like walk around in Hazmat suits to avoid diseases because that would be completely absurd, so why isn't it more absurd to shut down an entire major city for hours over a threat that is orders of magnitude less dangerous?
- bane 14y ago
  No, walking around in Hazmat suits would be completely rational. Logic dictates you need to start with the higher probability safety issues and start working down so long as a mitigation strategy exists for each type of event. Flu is the 9th leading cause of death in the U.S. A Hazmat suit is a perfect and completely rational barrier that completely eliminates that issue from your life - it's better and more full proof than a flu shot. Here's the list and mitigation strategies if any: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm 1 - Heart disease: don't eat foodstuffs that are known to increase the probability of heart disease, get plenty of cardio. 2 - Cancer: avoid all known carcinogens, refined sugars, etc. stay out of the sun (made easy by being in a Hazmat suit all the time) 3 - Chronic lower respiratory diseases: avoid exposure to transmission vectors, hazmat suit solves this. 4 - Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): Similar to 1 5 - Accidents (unintentional injuries): Don't participate in risky movements or behaviors, wear a helmet at all times, keep a comprehensive first aid kit on your person with all modern emergency responder equipment. Follow the buddy rule, but don't stay too close, stay away from high probability of injury transport methods. 6 - Alzheimer's disease: no known mitigation strategy 7 - Diabetes: mostly diet, see #1 and 4 8 - Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: no known strategy, but don't eat foods that might challenge your kidneys 9 - Influenza and Pneumonia: Hazmat suit, solved 10 - Intentional self-harm (suicide): don't do this, solved and then way down the list... NNN - Death by terrorism with a probability so low that even during an active terrorist attack RMSs conjecture is to just keep on keeping on with your normal day-to-day routine.
  - u2328 14y ago
    You're taking RMS's statement out of context. His point was that we not allow fear to overwhelm our senses so that we trade individual rights for security in police states, saying: "Every death or injury is a sad thing, but the fact is that many happen every day, and we should not let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others. Let's make an effort not to get bent out of shape about them, so that we can resist when people try to cite them as an excuse for tyranny." You're picking out his statement of proportionality as some sort of logical flaw in his argument, but you're completely missing the main point.
    - emily37 14y ago
      This main point is ridiculous. Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionately to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionately more than the death of a stranger? A reasonable statement would have been, "Let's not let these deaths be cited as an excuse for tyranny." But what he said was more along the lines of, "Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny." Why should we let the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny influence our emotional reactions to the deaths of friends and colleagues? Instead, let's react however is natural to these deaths, and at the same time ensure that we don't stand for fear-mongering and security theater.
      - u2328 14y ago
        Well, that's a different issue than what Bain was attempting to argue, but I'll indulge. You said, "Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionally to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionally more than the death of a stranger?" You're misrepresenting what he said. He never compared the death of a stranger to the death of a loved one. What he said is that it's silly to raise the tragedy the those who lost their lives in Boston to those who lost their lives in Texas this week. All premature death is a tragedy, but I didn't know anyone personally in Boston or Texas. So why should the deaths of those in Boston be more prolific to me than those that died in Texas? You said, "But what he said was more along the lines of, 'Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny.'" What he actually said was, "Every death or injury is a sad thing, but the fact is that many happen every day, and we should not let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others. Let's make an effort not to get bent out of shape about them, so that we can resist when people try to cite them as an excuse for tyranny." You can't change the words he used to misrepresent his argument because you didn't appreciate his bluntness. I'll admit, RMS is a very emotionally detached person, but that doesn't allow the opportunity to bend his words so that it makes it easier for you to shame him.

u2328 14y ago

Should I be worried? Depends; you'll probably not want to share this point with strangers. Since we've been repeatedly traumatized as a nation over the fears of 'terrorism' by war-hawks and sensationalist media outlets, many Americans expect a similar level of emotional reactionism from their compatriots. And when they don't get it from you, they turn on you quickly. I don't think it's healthy, but I guess it's understandable from all the mental abuse we've received as a nation since 9/11. RMS is out there on a lot of things, and he's very blunt with his opinions, but his emotional detachment does serve him well sometimes. The first step of healing from that mental disease we have now is step back a bit and realize the problem. We are addicted to fear.

asciimo 14y ago
Ha, thanks for the advice! (Maybe that's why Facebook friend count is plummeting...) In retrospect, the worry stemmed from the possibility of contracting RMS's personality traits. Irrational, indeed.