Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (47131)	7/25/1999 6:23:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You suspect wrong. And there have been a great many vehicles where all the occupants have been instantly killed when rear-ended at 70 mph -- or even a lesser speed. Steven is right. Re-read his post. You get too emotional and don't think clearly. Despite the name of this thread, try thinking more and feeling less. Thank you.

To: Grainne who wrote (47131)	7/25/1999 8:34:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

Are you saying that it is acceptable business behavior to decide that it would save money to knowingly let people burn to death, rather than pay a little more and fix the defect? It is not only acceptable but necessary. Business, government, individuals, all must constantly balance risk and reward. The government calculates the number of deaths which will ensue from increasing the speed limit on a highway, and when they decide the number of additional deaths is not too great they increase the speed limit. We could eliminate almost all traffic deaths in this country by imposing and enforcing a national 5 mph speed limit. But we don't, KNOWING that we are condemning people to death. Consumers Toyota Tercels rather than Chevy Suburbans KNOWING that they are increasing the possibility of their children dying horribly in a crash. And on and on. There were probably a thousand different improvements the car manufacturers could decide to make or not make to their cars, and each one would save a certain number of potential deaths or serious injuries. But if they make them all, nobody will buy the cars because most people won't pay more for a safer care (if they did, all that would on the road would be Mercedes and Volvo wagons). Do you condemn the owners of the cars for knowingly buying less safe cars just to save a few dollars? If you want to complain about businesses "knowingly [letting] people burn to death," what about our government that knowingly lets children die of horrible diseases and accidents rather than paying a little more to save them? Of course, the "little more" has to come out of pockets, but I'm sure you will be happy to be taxed for 99% of your income in order to save one more child. Won't you? It is part of the sickness of our culture that we believe everything has to be totally safe. Hell, life isn't safe. Every act of our lives is a balancing of risk and reward. Some of us balance one place, some another. Sometimes the balancing is carefully thought out, most of the time it isn't. Most of us win most of the time. Some of lose every now and again. That's life. Real life, not the pretend kind you seem to think we should be living.