3 ms·

Regarding Example #3, you investigate ~10,000 citizens and only ~100 are real terrorists, when we are talking about peoples lives, it's worth saving as many as

by dm2 12y ago

Regarding Example #3, you investigate ~10,000 citizens and only ~100 are real terrorists, when we are talking about peoples lives, it's worth saving as many as possible in my opinion. There is also the fear aspect that is difficult to calculate. How does fear of a terrorist attack affect the economy? Just look at the Ford Pinto. It was calculated that it would be cheaper to pay the families of victims than it was to fix the exploding gas tank.

simoncion 12y ago
> it's worth saving as many as possible in my opinion. You don't mean this. If you did, you would support mandatory exercise regimens and diet monitoring, and aggressive eugenics programs that include mandatory sterilization of folks at very high risk for nonviable offspring. > [Pinto anecdote] The facts seem to disagree with you. Read page eight (listed as page 1020 in the text) of this PDF: http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pint...
- dm2 12y ago
  > "You don't mean this. If you did, you would support mandatory exercise regimens and diet monitoring, and aggressive eugenics programs that include mandatory sterilization of folks at very high risk for nonviable offspring." You can't compare dying in a terrorist attack to the personal choice of not exercising or eating unhealthy. On page 1037 of the Schwartz Paper you linked to it stated that the California Supreme Court's opinion was that it actually encouraged auto manufacturers to consider the safety trade-offs in the sake of cost. I fundamentally disagree with this. I personally think that consumer responsibility to research every safety aspect of every product they purchase is bullshit. There should be no corners cut when it comes to safety and if there are then it should be made known to the customer before purchasing the product. The majority of people and decision makers disagree with me, but that's the great thing about this country and the internet, freedom to disagree and participate in open discussion.
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    > You can't compare dying in a terrorist attack to the personal choice of not exercising or eating unhealthy. Indeed - after all, the risk from a terrorist attack is so many orders of magnitude less likely we can often ignore it completely. It's noise, and deserves little special preparation. On the other hand, heart disease and other diet related problems are one of the largest risks faced.
    - dm2 12y ago
      It's not about the largest risk, it's about personal freedoms and choice. I should have the choice to decide whether or not I am unhealthy, it doesn't affect anyone but myself (and my family if they are dependent on me). The government should not have the choice on whether or not to protect citizens, that's their job, citizens are depending on them to perform that action. While I know people would be healthier and "better off" by eating healthy, I have no right to force people to eat a certain way. If I want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, that should be my choice, not yours to make for me, as long as it doesn't affect you. If I want to ask the government or a company to delete all information they have about me, I should have the right to do that, just my opinion of course.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        You can not say both this: > The government should not have the choice on whether or not to protect citizens, that's their job, citizens are depending on them to perform that action. And this: > If I want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, that should be my choice, not yours to make for me, as long as it doesn't affect you.
        dm2 12y ago
        Sorry, let me clarify, the government has the responsibility to protect me from things that I have no control over, like a foreign invasion, terrorist attacks, and other citizens (and government agencies) obstructing my rights. Makes perfect sense to me, do you still think that they are mutually exclusive statements?
VexXtreme 12y ago
More people get wrongfully killed every year by police officers than they do by terrorists. Why not deal with the low hanging fruit first?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by dm2 12y ago

simoncion 12y ago

> it's worth saving as many as possible in my opinion. You don't mean this. If you did, you would support mandatory exercise regimens and diet monitoring, and aggressive eugenics programs that include mandatory sterilization of folks at very high risk for nonviable offspring. > [Pinto anecdote] The facts seem to disagree with you. Read page eight (listed as page 1020 in the text) of this PDF: http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pint...

dm2 12y ago
> "You don't mean this. If you did, you would support mandatory exercise regimens and diet monitoring, and aggressive eugenics programs that include mandatory sterilization of folks at very high risk for nonviable offspring." You can't compare dying in a terrorist attack to the personal choice of not exercising or eating unhealthy. On page 1037 of the Schwartz Paper you linked to it stated that the California Supreme Court's opinion was that it actually encouraged auto manufacturers to consider the safety trade-offs in the sake of cost. I fundamentally disagree with this. I personally think that consumer responsibility to research every safety aspect of every product they purchase is bullshit. There should be no corners cut when it comes to safety and if there are then it should be made known to the customer before purchasing the product. The majority of people and decision makers disagree with me, but that's the great thing about this country and the internet, freedom to disagree and participate in open discussion.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  > You can't compare dying in a terrorist attack to the personal choice of not exercising or eating unhealthy. Indeed - after all, the risk from a terrorist attack is so many orders of magnitude less likely we can often ignore it completely. It's noise, and deserves little special preparation. On the other hand, heart disease and other diet related problems are one of the largest risks faced.
  - dm2 12y ago
    It's not about the largest risk, it's about personal freedoms and choice. I should have the choice to decide whether or not I am unhealthy, it doesn't affect anyone but myself (and my family if they are dependent on me). The government should not have the choice on whether or not to protect citizens, that's their job, citizens are depending on them to perform that action. While I know people would be healthier and "better off" by eating healthy, I have no right to force people to eat a certain way. If I want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, that should be my choice, not yours to make for me, as long as it doesn't affect you. If I want to ask the government or a company to delete all information they have about me, I should have the right to do that, just my opinion of course.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      You can not say both this: > The government should not have the choice on whether or not to protect citizens, that's their job, citizens are depending on them to perform that action. And this: > If I want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, that should be my choice, not yours to make for me, as long as it doesn't affect you.
      - dm2 12y ago
        Sorry, let me clarify, the government has the responsibility to protect me from things that I have no control over, like a foreign invasion, terrorist attacks, and other citizens (and government agencies) obstructing my rights. Makes perfect sense to me, do you still think that they are mutually exclusive statements?

VexXtreme 12y ago

More people get wrongfully killed every year by police officers than they do by terrorists. Why not deal with the low hanging fruit first?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]