What Ratio of Y to X Should Determine Life-Saving Decisions?

[BicycleTree]

It seems to me that this poll is starting to look dubious. it is almost as if one can assign a value or watever to anothers life. NO ONE has that RIGHT.

Maybe nobody has the right, but the fact is that some people have the power. There are cases where some people have to make that kind of choice.

 

[Physics is Phun]

BT your comments in the london thread were not in good taste at all. Although I don't entirely disagree with you, it is not the place to be making comment like that.

 

[BicycleTree]

You would rather that such comments be made far away from what they are relevant to? If I am saying that excessive regard is being paid to a certain topic, where else to place that comment than in a discussion of that topic?

 

[Physics is Phun]

Excessive regard? come on! Who care how many people have died. It is important to a lot of people on PF, especially the ones in england. what do you care how much regard people are paying. Would you be complaining if someone just posted a thread that their mom, or dog, or even fish died? No. You console the person. You don't tell them, "oh well, there are plenty of other dogs out there". Again, I am not disagreing with you, it is just not appropriate to post such provoking things in a thread specifically made for keeping us informed of the situation, and talking to people who may have had people they know hurt or worse.
You talk about looking at the big picture, but you fail to see the small picture which is helping the (few by your standards) people who this attack has affected, recover.

 

[BicycleTree]

The attack directly affected nobody on these forums. To the best of my knowledge, nobody on these forums knew anyone who died.

One hundred people died of cancer very recently.

 

[Knavish]

Yes, but the attacks indicate potential to affect some on the board. Moreover, it is indecent and rude the trivialize the attacks and the deaths as you did.

Edit: Please get back to obesity instead of cancer; this is what you initially argued for. By changing the topic to cancer--a death from which is completely different from death by obesity--you are twisting my words.

 

[BicycleTree]

Are the one hundred cancer deaths which happened in the USA in the past 40 minutes trivial?

 

[Knavish]

Edited, even before I saw your last post.

 

[brewnog]

You would rather that such comments be made far away from what they are relevant to? If I am saying that excessive regard is being paid to a certain topic, where else to place that comment than in a discussion of that topic?

You should remember that this is not a newspaper, where it is up to an editor to determine how many column inches should be devoted to a particular issue.

The amount of regard which a subject receives on a message board such as this is purely reflective of the amount of interest it gets. It's self regulating. If a topic appears which is not worthy of discussion, or which nobody cares about, it kills itself.

I choose not to comment on many of the issues in, say, the Astronomy, or Metaphysics forums on this site. They do not interest or concern me. I do not place posts there saying "this topic does not interest or concern me", and I certainly do not attempt to tell those present that, statistically, their issue is not worthy of the amount of discussion it has received. I do not understand why you feel the need to tell people that the topic they are discussing is not as important as you think they're making it out to be?

A thread was recently started by a member wanting to discuss some personal issues. He received over four pages of discussion on this matter. NOBODY told him that, say, African poverty was more important than his problem, even though I'm sure that everyone (himself included) would agree that it was. Perhaps, instead of trying to make everyone see "the big picture", you would benefit from either trying to see some smaller ones, or (alternatively) keeping yourself away from matters which you can't contribute anything to.

If the reason people have not voted in your poll isn't because they are not interested in it, or even think it's worthwhile, then perhaps it's because they were offended or disgusted by your thoughtless comments elsewhere.

 

[BicycleTree]

Actually, if you look back to the OP you see I am not focused solely on obesity-related deaths.


Edit: Brewnog, the difference between this and other focuses of attention is that this one is highly political and therefore important.

And you know, I have asked a question recently.

 

[brewnog]

Edit: Brewnog, the difference between this and other focuses of attention is that this one is highly political and therefore important.

So what's the problem with the amount of discussion it received then?

And you know, I have asked a question recently.

Good for you, but I think you missed the point entirely. I'm sure that anyone who is interested in it will add their comments. I will resist the temptation to try and tell these people that they're wasting their time discussing it, and should instead be discussing the price of crude oil, or the suicide bomb which has just gone off in Iraq, killing 20.

 

[BicycleTree]

So what's the problem with the amount of discussion it received then?

There is no problem with the amount of discussion that the question of the amount of discussion of terrorist actions with low body count is receiving is receiving. The way you phrased it, that seemed to be what you were referring to; possibly you misinterpreted what I said.

Jumping to what you probably meant to be talking about, the problem with the discussion of the terrorist actions with low body count is that it makes these things seem more important on the large scale than they really are--not that each individual death is not important, which it is--and encourages drastic military action for a threat that is not as large as it seems.


100 people died of cancer in the USA in the past 40 minutes.

 

[brewnog]

On behalf of everyone who was disgusted by your comments, I will accept that as a full apology.

Thanks.

 

[BicycleTree]

I think you merely misinterpreted my post, twice.

 

[Knavish]

You largely focused on obesity-related deaths, and you know it. There was only a hint or two about other "causes"--these causes carefully left ambiguous. Anyway, it seems you shared a different view in the other post:

..that non-nuclear terrorism is insignificant compared to larger, curable problems such as obesity..

Now you say:

..there are reasons--terrorism being a cause much out of the victim's control being one of them--to view deaths from terrorism as somewhat more important than deaths from other causes..

My only point was that I can express more pity for those who die uncontrolled deaths than those who die controlled ones. And that's all I said, and all I implied--there are no statistics involved. Simply admit that your (impudent) attitude in the last post was wrong, and I will be fine.

 

[BicycleTree]

Actually, the causes were not left ambiguous. I stated in the OP:

"Other deaths" are deaths to cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, accidents, pneumonia, etc.

The assumption about uncontrolled deaths is that an "other death" is often a preventable death.

 

[Knavish]

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

 

[BicycleTree]

What you said seemed pretty clear to me.

 

[BicycleTree]

If you think I have missed something, why don't you bring it up again? Odds are, I already consider it addressed under one of my points.

 

[Knavish]

Are you talking about the previous thread? That's the thread I'm talking about--the one in which you were mostly comparing obesity- with terrorist-related deaths. ANYWAY, I am so done with this. I think I've given you my views, and I have wasted way too much time on this. Sorry, but bye.