Re: DSC 832 on Cable VoIP

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jan 18, 10:53=EF=BF=BDpm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> RHC: This may be off topic a bit but I just have to respond to that
> infamous argument "if it just saves one life" in trying to justify
> some action or other. =EF=BF=BDOn the surface it would seem to be a diffi=
cult
> one to argue without looking like an uncaring fool. But over the years
> this argument has been used time and time again by (for example) the
> anti gun jealots when trying to justify their extreme positions on
> some regulation or proposed law.
>
> When you really think about it, there IS an answer and it's an obvious
> one. People in positions of power have to make hard choices all the
> time and do so based on costs versus benefits. Choices are made every
> day that govern the costs of a certain action versus the savings in
> human life - we do it in road design, in safety rules governing
> construction, in automobile design, in the placement (or not) of stop
> signs and stop lights, and in laws that govern our everyday public
> activities. There is no shame in making those kind of decisions which
> can involve calculating the loss of human lives versus the costs
> expended. That's just modern day life. Its using the dollars involved
> to provide the maximum benefit for the money expended and is what
> people in power are paid the big bucks to do.
>
> So to those who try to justify outlandish restrictions or pass
> unreasonable laws, and try to justify their extremism with that kind
> of foolish argument, that is pure unadulterated BULLSHIT. They are the
> ones who should be on the block to prove the worth of their proposals
> versus the human or financial costs of the counter position.
>
> As one example that comes to mind, idiot politicians up here recently
> used that argument to justify the expenditure of $2 BILLION dollars of
> public money to register all the long guns in the country, =EF=BF=BDon th=
e
> premise that it was worth it if =EF=BF=BD"it saved only one life" That is
> deluded extremism of the worst kind. I'm sure we can all think of
> other examples.
>
> So the next time that argument is used, take a long hard look at the
> person or group using it and make 'em prove their position is
> justified based on the actual FACTS of both sides of the
> situation .....-

As a matter of fact I got the term "Safety Zealots" from an article I
read about anti gun groups.