Let's just make the libertarian case against this argument, because I believe I can do so, and deconstruct it without resorting to a strawman.
The argument is that people should be made to be more of economic islands, by never taking care of anyone for them. That is to say, let them die without that liver unless they pay for it.
The problem with this idea is that this kind of lack of empathy for others' suffering isn't natural any more than the communist ideal of no greed is natural.
I acknowledged full well that suicide is multivariate. Japan has a bit more of those other variables. Suddenly switching to simplistic 1 dimensional analysis in order to cherry pick a one nation datapoint that suits your case isn't clever argumentation. It's intentional duplicitousness. Don't be that guy. Being that guy makes you an idiot.
Point the second, one can minimize the effect of these other variables by analyzing within populations to control for other known variables. This is called science.
Here is one such study. There are more if you can invent any variables you think need to be more adequately controlled for.
Point the third, no matter what the data say about the relationships, none of that calls for a specific course of action, and contesting relatively reasonable facts doesn't actually help the case you want to make, which is almost certainly about what kind of gun control is acceptable. It just helps you look ill-informed.
Not to get too deep into alternate economic philosophies that are not my own, but not all systems actually use pricing as a tool. Sure, there are still resources, and they're still expended, but those aren't necessarily quantified in the same manner.
Because people have responsibilities. Or do you think that orphans never happen from suicides? Or that there isn't also a risk to others in that household? I mean, come on.
We don't live in the disconnected libertarian fantasy land, where no one affects anyone else.
Your choices are : 1. Pay $2000, report that shooting you saw, with minimal indemnity 2. Report that shooting you saw, with a paranoid fear that you'll be a suspect 3. Keep silent, possibly drawing suspicion on yourself, if you somehow get reported as a witness(why wasn't he talking, if he knew?), pay $5000 for a lawyer after you now need one.
It's not as cut-and-dry as the "never talk to the police" crowd like to make it out to be.
Tools for death cause death in exactly the same way that tools for construction cause construction:
It wasn't nearly as easy without them, and we know how much firearm prevalence increases suicide prevalence. The two variables are actually related, and the disconnect you allege is purely hypothetical, and isn't worth discussing in a reality with measurable effects.
Naturally, no one is claiming suicide is a single variable event, but firearm ownership is an actual major variable.
I'm not sure why your lack of concern of serious public health issues matters more than anyone elses' concern. If premature deaths actually just affected the person responsible, it would be a more tacitly agreeable position. But the reality we face is one where people depend on each other, drunk drivers kill other people, and many people aren't fully aware of the consequences.
Those are all reasons to be interested in alcohol at a policy level. Outright prohibition has problems that are pretty well understood, but pretending that's what's on the table from these data is dishonest.
Whoa. Hold your horses there pal. They are most likely to be the gun owner(and their immediate family). It gets pretty extreme in some specific measurable cases. People like to frame it in terms of murder, since that appeals to more peoples' moral systems more directly. But suicide is the single biggest measurable concern vis-a-vis firearms.
For example: for the first year after purchasing your first handgun, that's the single most likely cause of death in your life, approaching almost 50% of deaths.
I feel like it would be extraordinarily intellectually dishonest of me to accept handguns as public health issue, and not alcohol. They are both serious concerns and need to be acknowledged as they are, not stewed in pots of rhetoric.
Look, if you genuinely believe, as our society tacitly does, that free market economics works, it's implicitly the case that you can put a number on a human life.
We're extremely averse to doing that in verbal speech, but in terms of how we design our economy to work, it's implicitly assumed people are doing that constantly. I'm not even trying to condemn that fact, just suggest it should be acknowledged as a reality of how we conduct ourselves.
Keep in mind, of course, that if you have evidence that could help ID the correct suspect, you may have a moral obligation to provide it, if not a legal one.
that is unconstitutional. Sorry. They can add charges for perjury if they can demonstrate you lied, but extrajudicial punishment is still unconstitutional.
Honda doesn't go "Oh by the way, you can't use your Civic anymore, since we can't be bothered to support it, but to show how nice we are, we'll provide a toolkit to help you port goods from your trunk to another company's vehicle".
Because those solar panels drop to 0% of their maximum rate over the course of 1 day, right? Come on, man.
There's nothing special about the number 50%, except that it's easily recognizable as a sizable amount for a large economy. It's not unreasonable to expect a mixture of energy technologies, but a changing mixture is news.
I'm not anti-nuclear, but I am pro-solar. More investment in solar promotes more research in cheaper solar, promotes more solar. All very tidy.
Shutting down every nuclear power plant in the world would have tragic consequences: no more radiographic medical treatments, the loss of ability to breed plutonium for things like rovers, ice breakers, aircraft carriers, and yeah, bombs, no ability to create a number of specialized scientific instruments.
No one actually wants that, unless they're unaware of the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
"Natural selection" on people who already have children.
Good job.
And that's giving you the absurd notion that because natural selection is the natural state of things, it's something we should strive for.
Let's just make the libertarian case against this argument, because I believe I can do so, and deconstruct it without resorting to a strawman.
The argument is that people should be made to be more of economic islands, by never taking care of anyone for them. That is to say, let them die without that liver unless they pay for it.
The problem with this idea is that this kind of lack of empathy for others' suffering isn't natural any more than the communist ideal of no greed is natural.
Okay.
Point the first, you're an idiot.
I acknowledged full well that suicide is multivariate. Japan has a bit more of those other variables. Suddenly switching to simplistic 1 dimensional analysis in order to cherry pick a one nation datapoint that suits your case isn't clever argumentation. It's intentional duplicitousness. Don't be that guy. Being that guy makes you an idiot.
Point the second, one can minimize the effect of these other variables by analyzing within populations to control for other known variables. This is called science.
Here is one such study. There are more if you can invent any variables you think need to be more adequately controlled for.
Point the third, no matter what the data say about the relationships, none of that calls for a specific course of action, and contesting relatively reasonable facts doesn't actually help the case you want to make, which is almost certainly about what kind of gun control is acceptable. It just helps you look ill-informed.
Not to get too deep into alternate economic philosophies that are not my own, but not all systems actually use pricing as a tool. Sure, there are still resources, and they're still expended, but those aren't necessarily quantified in the same manner.
Because people have responsibilities. Or do you think that orphans never happen from suicides? Or that there isn't also a risk to others in that household? I mean, come on.
We don't live in the disconnected libertarian fantasy land, where no one affects anyone else.
Well, that's extremely expensive.
Your choices are :
1. Pay $2000, report that shooting you saw, with minimal indemnity
2. Report that shooting you saw, with a paranoid fear that you'll be a suspect
3. Keep silent, possibly drawing suspicion on yourself, if you somehow get reported as a witness(why wasn't he talking, if he knew?), pay $5000 for a lawyer after you now need one.
It's not as cut-and-dry as the "never talk to the police" crowd like to make it out to be.
Tools for death cause death in exactly the same way that tools for construction cause construction:
It wasn't nearly as easy without them, and we know how much firearm prevalence increases suicide prevalence. The two variables are actually related, and the disconnect you allege is purely hypothetical, and isn't worth discussing in a reality with measurable effects.
Naturally, no one is claiming suicide is a single variable event, but firearm ownership is an actual major variable.
I'm not sure why your lack of concern of serious public health issues matters more than anyone elses' concern. If premature deaths actually just affected the person responsible, it would be a more tacitly agreeable position. But the reality we face is one where people depend on each other, drunk drivers kill other people, and many people aren't fully aware of the consequences.
Those are all reasons to be interested in alcohol at a policy level. Outright prohibition has problems that are pretty well understood, but pretending that's what's on the table from these data is dishonest.
Whoa. Hold your horses there pal. They are most likely to be the gun owner(and their immediate family). It gets pretty extreme in some specific measurable cases. People like to frame it in terms of murder, since that appeals to more peoples' moral systems more directly. But suicide is the single biggest measurable concern vis-a-vis firearms.
For example: for the first year after purchasing your first handgun, that's the single most likely cause of death in your life, approaching almost 50% of deaths.
I feel like it would be extraordinarily intellectually dishonest of me to accept handguns as public health issue, and not alcohol. They are both serious concerns and need to be acknowledged as they are, not stewed in pots of rhetoric.
Look, if you genuinely believe, as our society tacitly does, that free market economics works, it's implicitly the case that you can put a number on a human life.
We're extremely averse to doing that in verbal speech, but in terms of how we design our economy to work, it's implicitly assumed people are doing that constantly. I'm not even trying to condemn that fact, just suggest it should be acknowledged as a reality of how we conduct ourselves.
Hey! Listen.
Adblock everything. Ads don't respect you? Don't respect them.
Keep in mind, of course, that if you have evidence that could help ID the correct suspect, you may have a moral obligation to provide it, if not a legal one.
that is unconstitutional. Sorry. They can add charges for perjury if they can demonstrate you lied, but extrajudicial punishment is still unconstitutional.
Again, I said they'd have to prove it, not that there wasn't leverage available.
I mean, all you have to say is that you lost the actual key and cannot comply.
It's actually measurably true that if both parents work in the tech sector, a child is much more likely to be autistic.
Stupid knows no borders.
"free"
Honda doesn't go "Oh by the way, you can't use your Civic anymore, since we can't be bothered to support it, but to show how nice we are, we'll provide a toolkit to help you port goods from your trunk to another company's vehicle".
...And you're flat out wrong. Molten sodium core solar collectors are designed to generate power through the night.
Nighttime isn't the problem you're imagining it is.
Because those solar panels drop to 0% of their maximum rate over the course of 1 day, right? Come on, man.
There's nothing special about the number 50%, except that it's easily recognizable as a sizable amount for a large economy. It's not unreasonable to expect a mixture of energy technologies, but a changing mixture is news.
Because, as we saw, an increasing percentage of the energy production, both used domestically and exported, is coming from renewables.
What they exported before was also mostly coal, but now it's coal and solar.
No, but peak of 50% is pretty damn good progress on that kind of thing. We're talking about huge improvements in short time frames.
100% renewable is a pipe-dream. 50% consistent and 75% reliable peak seems reasonable within a decade with this kind of progress.
And here at google we're showing a new product that will aid you with everyday tasks... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's shut down in beta.
I'm not anti-nuclear, but I am pro-solar. More investment in solar promotes more research in cheaper solar, promotes more solar. All very tidy.
Shutting down every nuclear power plant in the world would have tragic consequences: no more radiographic medical treatments, the loss of ability to breed plutonium for things like rovers, ice breakers, aircraft carriers, and yeah, bombs, no ability to create a number of specialized scientific instruments.
No one actually wants that, unless they're unaware of the consequences.