No, you’re missing the point. With a physical object, like a house, someone else moving in uninvited would detract from your ability to use the house. With information, it doesn’t, unless you’re a snob... somebody else having a copy of your painting doesn’t interfere with your ability to enjoy it, unless your enjoyment of it was partly based on the fact that nobody else had it in the first place.
It’s more like they copied the blueprint for your house and used it to design virtual houses in SecondLife, which became so popular that people who would otherwise never have known about you came and wanted to buy copies of your blueprint to build real houses.
You claim that your narcissism only affects you, but you’re too narcissistic to see what takes place when everyone else is just as narcissistic, even after people point it out to you.
No, you’d freeze and after the 100 people had died when someone asks why you didn’t try to help them you’d claim you weren’t being cowardly, you were just “weighing the risks”.
It’s not a question of what you’d “rather”, it’s a question of doing what’s needed at the moment. Are you too much of a coward to take a little bit of a risk, or aren’t you?
A hero is someone who takes a risk because it was necessary. A fool is someone who takes unnecessary risks. And a coward takes no risks at all, even when they’re necessary.
Well, you did quite successfully derail your argument.
If you want to tell me what’s racist about what I said, you can attempt to get the argument back on track again, but even if you managed that I still doubt that anyone reading will come to any conclusion other than that you’re an ass.
Personally I find those positions to be disgusting or cowardly. I hope you are never presented with such a decision, because your child would then have to live with "my dad the murderer" or "my dad the coward."
Worse than that. The child will have to live with the guilt of being a murderer, since they were the reason their cowardly dad let 100 people die. Of course we all know that this is silly and that the child isn’t to blame in the least, but they’ll feel guilt for it nevertheless.
Alright, first of all, I’m not trolling. Secondly, you didn’t answer my fucking question, so I guess that makes you the troll. Did you even read my question correctly? When did I say that property damage is equal to the value of a human life?
The following two statements. True or false. You answer. And actually read them this time.
- a few thousand dollars worth of damage is nothing in comparison to the value of a human life - only a sociopath would trade one life for another
Perhaps this was a safe manoeuvre, given all the circumstances
Given all the circumstances, there were a lot of circumstances that you weren’t given because they were given in TFA and you didn’t read them.
The driver of the pickup had already drifted over to the left side of the road, struck the concrete barrier which prevented him from sliding into the oncoming traffic, and was continuing to drive at full acceleration in the left-hand shoulder lane. Waking up was unlikely since he’d already struck a concrete wall at this point (albeit a glancing hit, but I’m sure it was plenty loud) and even if he had come to consciousness, he was already on the accelerator pretty heavily so putting it on the floor (if it wasn’t already) wouldn’t have done that much more than it already was. Obviously they wouldn’t end up in the oncoming traffic either, since there was a barrier. He could, however, use the friction with the barrier to slow the vehicles further and push them harder into the wall, avoiding being pushed back into the lanes of traffic.
You’d happily put your kids in the position to send other people’s kids to their death, as long as your own precious snowflakes are kept out of harm’s way?
These aren't similar dilemmas, because only a sociopath equates a few thousand dollars of property damage with human lives. Just how cheap a price do you put on people?
Let me see if I’m understanding you correctly.
In your opinion, a few thousand dollars worth of damage is nothing in comparison to the value of a human life, but only a sociopath would trade one life for another?
Likewise the question really isn't "Will you watch in silence while Nazis kill 2 million Jews if they might kill your kids if you speak up?" The question is "At what point does a perceived impact on others/society at large overcome your desire to protect 'you and yours' from any possible hard?"
No... the much more interesting question is “...and why do you draw the line at that point?” That’s why I went ahead and Godwin’d it... we know we’ve crossed the line, at least, from there. So how far over the line are we, and why?
I hadn’t considered that possibility, but I went ahead and looked it up.
Washington (where this occurred) is an add-on state. This means that you must get liability coverage, but you can also “add-on” coverage for your own vehicle if you cause an accident.
Fault is determined and the insurance company of the person who caused the accident must pay to repair the damages caused by his accident (liability coverage), however they won’t cover the damage to his own vehicle unless he purchased the additional full coverage.
this state requires only liability insurance, which covers bodily injury and property damage you cause others while driving your automobile
Now (for the sake of argument), if it had been in a no-fault state, the fault would still have been significant. The driver not at fault wouldn’t be able to file claims against the driver-at-fault for medical costs, because each drivers’ own insurance company has to pay personal injury claims in a no-fault state. However, property damages caused by the other driver can be recouped by suing in small claims court, so if property damage occurred determining which driver was at fault is still necessary even in a no-fault state.
Under no-fault automobile insurance laws, the good driver does not have to prove that the crash was somebody else’s fault before getting his money. His insurance company picks up medical bills*, rehabilitation costs and lost wages up to the amount he purchased.
...
When it comes to physical damage to your car or its contents, unlike compensation for bodily injury claims, insurance claims are still based on fault. Those claims are handled in the same way as those in a state with a fault law: by filing a lawsuit against the bad driver or looking to your own collision insurance.
*Lawsuits, however, are permitted for injuries meeting a certain threshold
A more apt analogy would be if he ran over a few pedestrians to stop the guy's car.
Only if property damage vs. damage to human life are so disproportionate that we can’t even compare them.
He did cause collateral damage (to the vehicles). He didn’t kill any pedestrians, no. However, the stakes were much lower than in war... this was at most probably a few hundred thousand dollars and half a dozen or so people. In war, you could be saving millions (of people or dollars, either way).
FatSean wasn’t trying to call the other driver a passenger in his own vehicle on the account of him being unconscious. He called the unconscious man the “driver” several times in this other post.
You make a fair point, though, to argue that he was basically a passenger. However the thing that differentiated him from simply being a passenger was that he was driving the vehicle up until the point at which he passed out, which makes him responsible for the vehicle. Passing out doesn’t take away his responsibility to be the driver, so it’s fair to continue to call him the driver.
He had already swerved across a lane of traffic and bounced off the median wall. If that wasn’t enough to wake him from whatever it was, it was pretty safe to assume he was out of the picture.
How could an unconscious passenger cause an accident? Passengers generally only cause accidents if they’re talking to the driver or grabbing the steering wheel.
That begs the question: if it’s an acceptable (and even noble) compromise to crash a vehicle and cause a few thousand dollars in property damages to save a few lives, why isn’t it similarly an acceptable compromise to kill a few enemy combatants in order to save the lives of your fellow countrymen?
Slashdot Mirror
No, you’re missing the point. With a physical object, like a house, someone else moving in uninvited would detract from your ability to use the house. With information, it doesn’t, unless you’re a snob... somebody else having a copy of your painting doesn’t interfere with your ability to enjoy it, unless your enjoyment of it was partly based on the fact that nobody else had it in the first place.
It’s more like they copied the blueprint for your house and used it to design virtual houses in SecondLife, which became so popular that people who would otherwise never have known about you came and wanted to buy copies of your blueprint to build real houses.
But admittedly somewhat less capable of doing anything about those.
tautologous
1: involving or containing rhetorical tautology : redundant
2: true by virtue of its logical form alone
Yes, by both definitions. I was trying to make a point, actually, but I knew you’d be too narcissistic to get it.
You claim that your narcissism only affects you, but you’re too narcissistic to see what takes place when everyone else is just as narcissistic, even after people point it out to you.
You, sir, represent the pinnacle of narcissism.
No, you’d freeze and after the 100 people had died when someone asks why you didn’t try to help them you’d claim you weren’t being cowardly, you were just “weighing the risks”.
You won’t even tell me what you perceived as racist in my comment?
Well, then... people who call others racist and won’t say why are racists. Racist.
It’s not a question of what you’d “rather”, it’s a question of doing what’s needed at the moment. Are you too much of a coward to take a little bit of a risk, or aren’t you?
A hero is someone who takes a risk because it was necessary. A fool is someone who takes unnecessary risks. And a coward takes no risks at all, even when they’re necessary.
Well, you did quite successfully derail your argument.
If you want to tell me what’s racist about what I said, you can attempt to get the argument back on track again, but even if you managed that I still doubt that anyone reading will come to any conclusion other than that you’re an ass.
No, that phenomenon is exactly what you get when everyone starts thinking like you:
Thinking of their own kids to the point where they’ll let other people’s kids die to keep their own offspring out of any danger.
Personally I find those positions to be disgusting or cowardly. I hope you are never presented with such a decision, because your child would then have to live with "my dad the murderer" or "my dad the coward."
Worse than that. The child will have to live with the guilt of being a murderer, since they were the reason their cowardly dad let 100 people die. Of course we all know that this is silly and that the child isn’t to blame in the least, but they’ll feel guilt for it nevertheless.
But we all generally agree, in hindsight, that it should have.
Can’t prove your point because you have no leg to stand on, so you call someone a racist. Brilliant, why didn’t I think of that?
Alright, first of all, I’m not trolling. Secondly, you didn’t answer my fucking question, so I guess that makes you the troll. Did you even read my question correctly? When did I say that property damage is equal to the value of a human life?
The following two statements. True or false. You answer. And actually read them this time.
- a few thousand dollars worth of damage is nothing in comparison to the value of a human life
- only a sociopath would trade one life for another
if you hit someone from behind (for whatever reason --well unless the other car was not moving and it can be proven --) you're at fault.
I’m pretty sure that if the other car’s not moving and you hit it from behind, you’re still going to be at fault... or am I missing something?
Perhaps this was a safe manoeuvre, given all the circumstances
Given all the circumstances, there were a lot of circumstances that you weren’t given because they were given in TFA and you didn’t read them.
The driver of the pickup had already drifted over to the left side of the road, struck the concrete barrier which prevented him from sliding into the oncoming traffic, and was continuing to drive at full acceleration in the left-hand shoulder lane. Waking up was unlikely since he’d already struck a concrete wall at this point (albeit a glancing hit, but I’m sure it was plenty loud) and even if he had come to consciousness, he was already on the accelerator pretty heavily so putting it on the floor (if it wasn’t already) wouldn’t have done that much more than it already was. Obviously they wouldn’t end up in the oncoming traffic either, since there was a barrier. He could, however, use the friction with the barrier to slow the vehicles further and push them harder into the wall, avoiding being pushed back into the lanes of traffic.
You’d happily put your kids in the position to send other people’s kids to their death, as long as your own precious snowflakes are kept out of harm’s way?
You are sick.
Who knows what he might do if started into alertness by an impact.
Bouncing off the jersey barrier that kept him from going into the oncoming lanes of traffic hadn’t woken him, though.
These aren't similar dilemmas, because only a sociopath equates a few thousand dollars of property damage with human lives. Just how cheap a price do you put on people?
Let me see if I’m understanding you correctly.
In your opinion, a few thousand dollars worth of damage is nothing in comparison to the value of a human life, but only a sociopath would trade one life for another?
Likewise the question really isn't "Will you watch in silence while Nazis kill 2 million Jews if they might kill your kids if you speak up?"
The question is "At what point does a perceived impact on others/society at large overcome your desire to protect 'you and yours' from any possible hard?"
No... the much more interesting question is “...and why do you draw the line at that point?” That’s why I went ahead and Godwin’d it... we know we’ve crossed the line, at least, from there. So how far over the line are we, and why?
I hadn’t considered that possibility, but I went ahead and looked it up.
Washington (where this occurred) is an add-on state. This means that you must get liability coverage, but you can also “add-on” coverage for your own vehicle if you cause an accident.
Fault is determined and the insurance company of the person who caused the accident must pay to repair the damages caused by his accident (liability coverage), however they won’t cover the damage to his own vehicle unless he purchased the additional full coverage.
http://www.insureme.com/insurance/washington-insurance
Now (for the sake of argument), if it had been in a no-fault state, the fault would still have been significant. The driver not at fault wouldn’t be able to file claims against the driver-at-fault for medical costs, because each drivers’ own insurance company has to pay personal injury claims in a no-fault state. However, property damages caused by the other driver can be recouped by suing in small claims court, so if property damage occurred determining which driver was at fault is still necessary even in a no-fault state.
http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/auto/fault-no-fault-car-accidents.htm
A more apt analogy would be if he ran over a few pedestrians to stop the guy's car.
Only if property damage vs. damage to human life are so disproportionate that we can’t even compare them.
He did cause collateral damage (to the vehicles). He didn’t kill any pedestrians, no. However, the stakes were much lower than in war... this was at most probably a few hundred thousand dollars and half a dozen or so people. In war, you could be saving millions (of people or dollars, either way).
FatSean wasn’t trying to call the other driver a passenger in his own vehicle on the account of him being unconscious. He called the unconscious man the “driver” several times in this other post.
You make a fair point, though, to argue that he was basically a passenger. However the thing that differentiated him from simply being a passenger was that he was driving the vehicle up until the point at which he passed out, which makes him responsible for the vehicle. Passing out doesn’t take away his responsibility to be the driver, so it’s fair to continue to call him the driver.
He had already swerved across a lane of traffic and bounced off the median wall. If that wasn’t enough to wake him from whatever it was, it was pretty safe to assume he was out of the picture.
How could an unconscious passenger cause an accident? Passengers generally only cause accidents if they’re talking to the driver or grabbing the steering wheel.
That begs the question: if it’s an acceptable (and even noble) compromise to crash a vehicle and cause a few thousand dollars in property damages to save a few lives, why isn’t it similarly an acceptable compromise to kill a few enemy combatants in order to save the lives of your fellow countrymen?