Posted on 01/04/2021 6:19:39 AM PST by Kaslin
LOL! Data outliers, but OH so important! :-)
I say ban dihydrogen monoixide (DHMO). It kills thousands every year.
Another one is the “do nothing unless you can prove with 100% certainty it does cause harm” aka the “uncertainty principle”.
What’s ironic is that the liberals tout all three idiotic axioms.
If it saves one life it’s worth it.
We have to do something
Do not do anything.
RUN HIM OVER and SQUASH HIM LIKE A BUG!
Idiot shouldn’t have been Jay walking anyway.
Drugs no more kill people than guns do. People sometimes kill, and more often don't, using drugs or guns.
No, the “if it only saves one life” crowd remains firmly opposed to any such measures.
Actually, I seem to recall “if it only saves one life” tossed out on FR as a pro-Drug-War argument.
Those supporting the Brady waiting period way back when used that argument.
After it was implemented, some newspaper reported that a woman whose ex had threatened to kill her tried to buy a handgun and was told, due to the new law, she’d have to wait five days.
In the meantime, hubby came over, kicked in the sliding glass door and stabbed her to death with a Garand bayonet.
The newspaper asked “What if the law kills just one person?” No answer, and the story disappeared. I think the Rifleman reprinted it.
I’ve yet to face that argument, but would ask the same question, and fully expect the answer would be “Look! There’s Elvis!”
When ever the powers that be or what ever mob is screaming about ‘’the common good’’ it’s important to remember that what ever is for the ‘’common good’’ is neither common nor good.
How about, if possible, avoid driving on an ice covered road?
Now you are on the right track, where I grew up we found huge numbers of quartz arrowheads and spear points, all of which should be collected and pulverized into powder to prevent injury. Yes, it would cost a lot of money but IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE etc. etc. Anyone who owns such real estate should bear the cost of removing these dangerous prehistoric weapons or the state should take possession of the property. The need is obvious but I believe I am the first to suggest this so I believe I should somehow benefit financially for my brilliant suggestion. Perhaps I could be granted a few thousand acres from which these hazards have been removed?
While the answer should be obvious to any thinking (and for that matter, feeling) person, this is the very kind of question that I suspect, will tie the driverless car industry in knots. Any coder/programmer who (far removed from the scene by time and distance) instructs the bus/truck/car to run over the pedestrian will be directly culpable for his death. In as much as his programming was done in performance of his official capacity for the auto maker, or a contractor, they would likely be culpable as well.
The "right" answer to your question, which should be arrived at in a matter of a second or two, will tie up lawyers, litigators, legislators, the insurance industry and the auto industry for years. I do suspect that if the concept of the driverless car fails it will be because of this sort of thing rather than the technical challenges of actually making them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.