Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you go out on the street, there is a chance that some car will veer off the road and kill you. You could maybe change that result by wearing a huge, specially designed, titanium-and-platinum alloy cage around your body that costs $100,000, but there's only a 10% chance it will work. So you should do it, right?
I think there are a significant number of people who just want to get a handle on the cost-benefit analysis, and/or don't feel like it's worth it. I mean, fuck, for years we didn't have airbags in cars, even though we know they save a lot of people in accidents, because they made cars too expensive. We don't have a policeman for every 3 people, even though that would probably reduce the crime rate to zero, because it would be too expensive and is not worth the money.
You are using crap examples, is my point.
|
I agree with you completely. The problem is, somebody always makes this argument in reply -
"Yes, but you'd think differently if you were one of the people who DIED because something was too expensive."
You're talking macro; Spankster's just running to its absurd conclusion the American fantasy that death can somehow be cheated if we're just vigilant enough.
Hey, Spanks... read Tom Friedman's Oped piece from this morning, called "Learning From Lance." Bombs ain't our biggest problem.
Threaded Mode