"If it saves only one life" - time to shut down the NYC subway?

[Dave_Hartwick]

@Der_Trihs

If they aren’t “noisy” then they aren’t “pro-gun”.

Yeah, and not even close to being Scotsmen.

[Der_Trihs]

@curlcoat

Really? What do you base that on?

You can’t really be pro- anything without being “noisy”.

[marshmallow]

@Chimera

If we kill all Humans, it may cost billions of lives all at once, but I promise, we’ll never again lose another Human for any reason whatsoever!

Antinatalism works. Life is the leading cause of death.

[Cat_Whisperer]

I hate that “if it saves only one life” type of reasoning - yes, saving one life is a big freaking deal, if you or your loved one is that life. On the other hand, though, we still have to live and conduct business and go places, and we can’t do that trying to achieve a zero percent chance of anything ever happening to anybody.

Is there a name for that fallacy?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Der_Trihs

You can’t really be pro- anything without being “noisy”.

I am pro-silence. So there.

[Zebra]

Well the NYC subway could erect walls with doors so the tracks are not open to the platform, but the doors open when the doors to the train open and close. This would also make it possible to have air conditioning and heating on the platforms and hey, it would save lives.

[asterion]

So, in other words, like any number of airports. What would it cost to refit the entire system that way?

[Martiju]

@asterion

So, in other words, like any number of airports. What would it cost to refit the entire system that way?

It would cost a lot. It’s then a judgement as to whether the additional safety leads to additional revenue in the long run. Or, of course, you can take an ethical stance and decide that safety (of children and the elderly in particular) is worth the cost.

I’d have a look at this page if you genuinely want to know about how different countries are implementing such systems. In the UK there’s been a decision, for example, not to do this all at once but to gradually cover the whole, vast, system - starting with lines and stations that were either new or due for upgrading anyway.

[Debaser]

@Der_Trihs

It also fails as an anti-gun control argument because pro-gun people don’t care about human life in the first place. They don’t care about “just one life”, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a million. They’d cheerfully mount their gun collection on top of a mountain of innocent corpses; to them guns are what matter, and nothing else. They have no morals, no honor, no loyalty, no morality, no concern for friends or family; just the all-consuming worship of guns.

At what point can we call this what it is: Being a fucking jerk.

Der Trihs is an embarrassment and should be banned from the board.

[BobLibDem]

@Debaser

At what point can we call this what it is: Being a fucking jerk.

Der Trihs is an embarrassment and should be banned from the board.

There isn’t a sentence in Der Trihs’ post that I don’t wholeheartedly agree with. If telling the truth is being a jerk, I hope I’m half as big a jerk as he is. Just because you can’t handle the truth is no reason to ban the one who tells it.

[magellan01]

@Der_Trihs

You can’t really be pro- anything without being “noisy”.

Something else your dog told you? :rolleyes:

[April_R]

@Askthepizzaguy

As with anything, context is important.

Making subways safer could be as easy as having a barrier between the subway tube and the platform where the passengers wait, which is raised or lowered to allow passengers in, and then closed when the train departs, thus ensuring that passengers can’t get trapped on the rails.

The only question then is the cost. Is it possible to do it affordably, and the answer may very well be no. But there can be a sane and rational discussion regarding subway safety.

In a similar vein, it’s possible to have a discussion regarding how we can make guns safer, how to keep guns out of the hands of unsafe people, and what sort of limits we can put on guns whose usage could only be mass murder.

Gun safety is an issue that’s already been tackled by governments and manufacturers alike. That’s for accidental discharges. But what about a weapon which is not meant for hunting, or home defense?

What about a weapon that can be used to kill dozens of people in mere seconds? Enough ammunition to take out an entire crowd of people without reloading?

This is not a human right, and it shouldn’t be a legal right. It’s entirely unnecessary. It doesn’t give victims a fighting chance to survive.

This sort of debate is pathetic. Some people seem to believe that they should have limitless right to own any kind of mass-murdering device, and that this is a basic necessity and human right. Those people are sociopaths and I’d really rather they packed up their murder-fetish tools and left the country entirely. Go live in Somalia where they don’t have to worry about government intervention, and they can have all the guns they want, and they might actually need them.

Bah, stop being so reasonable and logical.

[Jackmannii]

@Joe Biden

But as the president said, even if what we do only saves one life, it makes sense

This is damn stupid, no matter what you think about gun control.

The one you usually hear is “it’s worth it if it saves a single child’s life” - used as justification for various legislation and law enforcement tactics (bans on any depiction of violence in movies or computer games, Internet anti-harassment laws, use of traffic cameras etc.).

If you’re hung up on the immense importance of saving a single life, lower speed limits universally to 20 mph (or eliminate all forms of transportation), ban all household cleaning products, all non-lifesaving medication, all campfires, all power generation and anything at all that could possibly cost a single human life.

Biden is an ass.

[Buck_Godot]

@Chimera

If we kill all Humans, it may cost billions of lives…

Meh, who cares they were going to die eventually anyway.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Jackmannii

This is damn stupid, no matter what you think about gun control.

The one you usually hear is “it’s worth it if it saves a single child’s life” - used as justification for various legislation and law enforcement tactics (bans on any depiction of violence in movies or computer games, Internet anti-harassment laws, use of traffic cameras etc.).

If you’re hung up on the immense importance of saving a single life, lower speed limits universally to 20 mph (or eliminate all forms of transportation), ban all household cleaning products, all non-lifesaving medication, all campfires, all power generation and anything at all that could possibly cost a single human life.

Biden is an ass.

Not to mention that once a regulation/legislation is put in place “to save lives,” it will never get repealed no matter how stupid it turns out to be, because no politician wants to be the politician who doesn’t want to save your children’s lives.

[JohnT]

@Harborwolf

Works for me. Let’s be honest here. We really do suck.

Who’s up for some doomsday brain storming? A super virus would be fine, but lacks panache. I’m thinking some sort of orbital solar beam. Kinda like a big magnifying glass, but jazzier.

Truly, there’s only one way to be sure…

[Acsenray]

@Jackmannii

This is damn stupid, no matter what you think about gun control.

The one you usually hear is “it’s worth it if it saves a single child’s life” - used as justification for various legislation and law enforcement tactics (bans on any depiction of violence in movies or computer games, Internet anti-harassment laws, use of traffic cameras etc.).

If you’re hung up on the immense importance of saving a single life, lower speed limits universally to 20 mph (or eliminate all forms of transportation), ban all household cleaning products, all non-lifesaving medication, all campfires, all power generation and anything at all that could possibly cost a single human life.

Biden is an ass.

Notice that Biden said that it was worth it to take steps to save that one life without interfering with Second Amendment rights. He didn’t say that it was worth it to do anything that might save one life.

[YogSothoth]

Yeah but how many people’s lives does the NYC subway save a day? Like 10?

[Inigo_Montoya]

@Der_Trihs

…pro-gun people don’t care about human life in the first place. They don’t care about “just one life”, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a million. They’d cheerfully mount their gun collection on top of a mountain of innocent corpses; to them guns are what matter, and nothing else. They have no morals, no honor, no loyalty, no morality, no concern for friends or family; just the all-consuming worship of guns.

So, apart from sociapaths, there are really no “pro-gun people.” I think you probably need to rework your definition of “pro-gun” becuase .. ahem … I do not think it means what you think it means.

[drew870mitchell]

So I tried sourcing Mr. Biden’s full comments because the phrasing didn’t smell right. Nothing too arduous, just a few Google searches, clicking around on news articles, within the purview of any citizen. What I observed are two seemingly distinct realities.

In Reality #1, which the OP (thanks lsosleepy) linked to, CBS and other reputable organizations included this part when quoting him:

@Lucy Madison for CBS; bolding mine

“I’m not sure we can guarantee that this will never happen again. But as the president said, even if what we do only saves one life, it makes sense,” he said. "And I think we can do a great deal without in any way imposing on or impinging on the rights of the second amendment, that the second amendment guarantees. That’s what this is all about."

Bonus points to those of you who go further into Reality #1 and find Biden saying he’s “reached no conclusions.”

In Reality #2, when I searched for “biden “if you can save one life””, which is the part of this which is going to be glurged around more anyway, the results:

Every single first-page search result was a conservative news source or blog which failed to include Biden’s deference to the Second Amendment. Most of them just cut the quotes short before his “And I think we can do a great deal without in any way imposing…” sentence. Glenn Beck’s site went above and beyond by omitting the mention of the Second and just picking the quote right back up with “That’s what this is all about.”

Out of all the variations I tried on that search, one result, an article by Paul Strand of CBN (the 700 Club guys), actually included his mention of the Second Amendment rights. But this was not a high-ranked result and did not come up on my first search.

If you are only getting your news from ideologically slanted sources; sources that you already agree with - and you know who you are - then you are being brazenly lied to. Stop reading them; stop rewarding them for lying to you; and starve the beast, so that the next time I try to Google something I get honest results the first time instead of page after page of echo-chamber bullshit.