undefined | Better HN

0 pointsimtyler6y ago0 comments

You're comparing the mortality rate of automobile travel to that of aircraft travel. Would you also compare the rates at which the two forms of travel are subject to, say, bird collisions?

Comparing the two is drawing a false equivalence. Yes, flying and driving are both modes of transportation, but they're radically different in terms of methodology.

0 comments

skybrian6y ago

I don't understand your objection. I asked a question. I didn't pick a methodology for comparison, so you can choose your own.

geezerjay6y ago

> I don't understand your objection.

The objection is obvious and very easy to understand; it tries to compare apples with oranges, and here you are trying to argue that they are both fruit.

skybrian6y ago

"Apples and oranges" is a metaphor for things that shouldn't be compared. But that's just asserting that you can't compare two things without giving a reason. And I'm asking why not?

There are lots of statistics comparing deaths from different causes. Why not use them to make informed choices about risk?

1 more reply

imtylerOP6y ago

Respectfully, my objection is the implication that people should be okay with an "acceptable rate of mortality" for air travel because there's a relatively high rate of mortality for automobile travel (which is unrelated.)

skybrian6y ago

There is an acceptable rate of mortality for everything. In some cases it's very low, but not zero. You can't leave the house without taking a risk, and there are risks at home, too.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsimtyler6y ago0 comments

You're comparing the mortality rate of automobile travel to that of aircraft travel. Would you also compare the rates at which the two forms of travel are subject to, say, bird collisions?

Comparing the two is drawing a false equivalence. Yes, flying and driving are both modes of transportation, but they're radically different in terms of methodology.

0 comments

skybrian6y ago

I don't understand your objection. I asked a question. I didn't pick a methodology for comparison, so you can choose your own.

geezerjay6y ago

> I don't understand your objection.

The objection is obvious and very easy to understand; it tries to compare apples with oranges, and here you are trying to argue that they are both fruit.

skybrian6y ago

"Apples and oranges" is a metaphor for things that shouldn't be compared. But that's just asserting that you can't compare two things without giving a reason. And I'm asking why not?

There are lots of statistics comparing deaths from different causes. Why not use them to make informed choices about risk?

1 more reply

imtylerOP6y ago

skybrian6y ago

There is an acceptable rate of mortality for everything. In some cases it's very low, but not zero. You can't leave the house without taking a risk, and there are risks at home, too.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse