if you give people slack when their argument is if it saves one life. the next thing you know your rights are taken from under your nose.
It does need fixing.
That line of thought is why we have airbags mandated for every single car that does more harm than good. It's because jumping on the bandwagon onto safety without properly thinking about it does a lot more harm than good.
His line of thought would shift blame onto game manufacturers for a really really low percentage of human trash that cannot control themselves. It would litigate people out of jobs and we already have too many laws which blame others instead of the ones causing the problem.
In his previous example he wanted to mandate $1500 for thermal imaging in cars. That adds a huge cost and weight to an already expensive system into cars, let alone the maintenance costs. It's questionable how many lives that would save a year. Clearly the FTA doesn't think it's worth while technology to pursue.
Even in the medical profession we have concepts such as triage which is to treat the patients who have the highest chance of saving first. That's how you save the most people is to figure out ways to address the problems affecting the most people, then move on to the unlikely chances.
This pokemon go issue is a very unlikely chance. It's outright silly to treat it like a epidemic.
Ask Z about whatever right you are concerned with and find out how much he values that right himself.
I've gone days and weeks in circular arguments with Z, and some others here and in the topics we are arguing about you would think that we were complete polar opposites.
Then I have quietly engaged them with a PM, told them about myself, my life, read about there's and gotten to our worries and concerns and what I keep finding out is that we are far more alike than we are different.
Try it, you might like it.
No, it's perfectly normal to "stamp out" irrational lines of thought and explain why they're absurd. Nothing happens then because it doesn't solve anything and causes more problems if seriously listened to.But if you stamp out his line of thought without remorse and completely eliminate it, what happens then? You can not approach problem solving without weighting pros and cons. You can't select the best course of action without having more than one course to choose from.
A democracy isn't a democracy if everyone thinks exactly the same and has exactly the same values, it's just an Ant Farm.
We need difference and we need to value difference and we all, despite our differences need to be able to come together and find solutions to problems that work. Maybe this time, guys like Z don't have the best approach, but what about the next problem?
I'll keep him around, I have one hell of an ego and I think I am always right, but one thing I try not to forget is that everything I ever learned, I learned from someone else, or I learned the hard way.
And sometimes learning the hard way sucked.
No, it's perfectly normal to "stamp out" irrational lines of thought and explain why they're absurd. Nothing happens then because it doesn't solve anything and causes more problems if seriously listened to.
For example, if someone was concerned about their house being built next to the ocean and flooding/tidal waves, one might suggest building a sea wall. Others might suggest raising the structure using pylons. Others might even suggest relocating the house. Someone might suggest moving the house to mars because there's no water on mars.
If you seriously consider that last suggestion as something viable then you end up wasting your time because it would cause a lot more problems moving the house to mars than any of the other reasonable solutions.
Also, a democracy is all about majority rule, not diversity. I believe you're confusing the two to make an illogical argument.
I'm not operating under any premise. The internet itself is the perfect forum for opinions and ideas.But you are operating under a false premise. Your example suggests that we are a group has has something to say about what is to be done. That we have some authority over the outcome and an impact on the choices. We do not, and if we do, this is not the "forum" for that activity. This is only a place for discussion, exploring ideas and a little friendly bonding. While your argument would be sound if we were the Politburo, it looses validity on the [H]. Here, opinions are not required to be viable and although no one requires that you respect the opinions of others, I think we'll all enjoy each other a little more if we at least respect their right to have their own opinions.
Like I said, Z might not have the best solution for this problem but it doesn't mean he doesn't have good ideas on other problems or that by listening to his reasoning that together you won't both discover the best option available.
Have you never had someone suggest something that wouldn't actually work, but it made you think of something else that would work even better than what you had initially come up with?