5 ms·

> "You don't mean this. If you did, you would support mandatory exercise regimens and diet monitoring, and aggressive eugenics programs that include mandatory s

by 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?
      - swombat 12y ago
        If it's about decreasing the chances of dying because of the actions of someone else at all costs (economic, personal, etc) - then the first thing the government should do is ban cars for the vast swathes of the population that don't strictly require a car (i.e. live next to a big city). That's 40'000 easily avoidable deaths each year - all they take is some inconvenience from everyone and a bit of investment in public transport infrastructure, in exchange for a dozen 9/11's worth of terrorism avoided every single year. As a bonus, the US's oil consumption would plummet and it would almost instantly achieve any environmental targets it can dream of. What's that - you still want the freedom to drive? Even though it involves a fairly significant (0.01%) risk of dying because of things not under your control? Well, some people want the freedom to not be monitored all the time, even though it involves a much smaller than 0.01% risk of dying because of a terrorist attack. And all people should, and would, if terrorism didn't capture the imagination so vividly.
        dm2 12y ago
        If we can get the US government to divert 75% of the money spent towards terrorism prevention towards autonomous vehicle research and electric vehicle subsidizing, then let's do it. Maybe you're right, maybe we're both partially correct, it's a complicated issue and I do appreciate the discussion.
pwg 12y ago
> You can't compare dying in a terrorist attack to the personal choice of not exercising or eating unhealthy. Except that the chances of each occurring are wildly different. Chance of dying from terrorist attack in the US from 2007 to 2011: 1 in 20 million [1]. Chance of dying from choking from inhalation and ingestion of food: 1 in 3,649 [2]. 20,000,000 / 3,649 => 5,480. You are five thousand eight hundred forty times more likely to die from choking on your breakfast/lunch/dinner than to die from a terrorist attack. The difference is so extreme that you'd be better off ignoring the terrorist attack threat and instead installing a feeding tube so you no longer need to chew and swallow your food. You'd statistically live longer that way than worrying about protecting yourself from terrorist threats. [1]http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack-number/ http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-t... [2] http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/2014-Injury-Facts-43.pdf http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistic... linked from here: http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Pages/TheOddsofDyingFrom.aspx http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistic...

by dm2 12y ago

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?
    - swombat 12y ago
      If it's about decreasing the chances of dying because of the actions of someone else at all costs (economic, personal, etc) - then the first thing the government should do is ban cars for the vast swathes of the population that don't strictly require a car (i.e. live next to a big city). That's 40'000 easily avoidable deaths each year - all they take is some inconvenience from everyone and a bit of investment in public transport infrastructure, in exchange for a dozen 9/11's worth of terrorism avoided every single year. As a bonus, the US's oil consumption would plummet and it would almost instantly achieve any environmental targets it can dream of. What's that - you still want the freedom to drive? Even though it involves a fairly significant (0.01%) risk of dying because of things not under your control? Well, some people want the freedom to not be monitored all the time, even though it involves a much smaller than 0.01% risk of dying because of a terrorist attack. And all people should, and would, if terrorism didn't capture the imagination so vividly.
      - dm2 12y ago
        If we can get the US government to divert 75% of the money spent towards terrorism prevention towards autonomous vehicle research and electric vehicle subsidizing, then let's do it. Maybe you're right, maybe we're both partially correct, it's a complicated issue and I do appreciate the discussion.

pwg 12y ago

> You can't compare dying in a terrorist attack to the personal choice of not exercising or eating unhealthy. Except that the chances of each occurring are wildly different. Chance of dying from terrorist attack in the US from 2007 to 2011: 1 in 20 million [1]. Chance of dying from choking from inhalation and ingestion of food: 1 in 3,649 [2]. 20,000,000 / 3,649 => 5,480. You are five thousand eight hundred forty times more likely to die from choking on your breakfast/lunch/dinner than to die from a terrorist attack. The difference is so extreme that you'd be better off ignoring the terrorist attack threat and instead installing a feeding tube so you no longer need to chew and swallow your food. You'd statistically live longer that way than worrying about protecting yourself from terrorist threats. [1]http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack-number/ http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-t... [2] http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/2014-Injury-Facts-43.pdf http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistic... linked from here: http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Pages/TheOddsofDyingFrom.aspx http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistic...