Discussion for Post at 2007-05-10 13:36:43.609938http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#CommentsDiscussion for Post at 2007-05-10 13:36:43.609938en-usMon, 16 Jul 2018 04:54:57 -0000 by Jeremy Bowers http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#comment21<p>w.r.t. editing: I'm ambivalent on that. I <i>know</i> you need at least one of "preview" and "edit", and I do have preview, assuming that's working correctly. (It's even a "real" preview; the HTML that comes back is definitely what will be posted as your comment.)</p> <p>I've been looking at tracking the changes to all of my "TextHunks", which underlie both comments and blog posts, so if I do start tracking the versions of my posts (or at least the published ones), comments will probably get editing.</p> <p>There's arguments both ways, though the ones against editing tend to assume bad faith, and it'll be a long time before that's an issue here.</p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#comment21 by Anon Ymous http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#comment20<p>Looking at my comment I'd say it's got two poorly separated points.. Perhaps I need to edit it... Which would bring up me making a feature request ;-)</p> <p>But to address your response, I'd say counterproductive is actually a "better" argument then "[not] enough of a threat to be worth the resources we're pouring into it". In the latter argument the resources are having some net positive effect of reducing the threat. We'd just be arguing over the value of a saved life. And thus the point of the deadly risk of buckets. (I'm sure if we pour enough money into bucket safety research we could eliminate the 30 deaths a year, but it might make buckets cost a thousand dollars each...)</p> <p>But by arguing it's counterproductive; I'm suggesting that the resources we are pouring into it are actually making things worse.</p> <p>So I'm suggesting the sign of the effect being wrong is an even a stronger argument than the magnitude of the cost per saved life.</p> <p>(I wonder if that's a properly used semicolon...)</p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#comment20 by Jeremy Bowers http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#comment19<p>I would consider that to fall under the heading of "[not] enough of a threat to be worth the resources we're pouring into it"; if you consider the net effect negative ("counterproductive"), then almost by definition it's not worth even a single buck.</p> <p>Obviously, the emphasis of your statement is different.</p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#comment19 by Anon Ymous http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#comment18<p>I'd like to think that the best argument against the 'War' is that it's counterproductive, and ineffective. Armies should fight armies, police and justice systems should be used to find people commiting crimes and stopping them.</p> <p>Honestly I don't get why we should be fearing any of this crap, comparing the number of people that die from car crashes, I suspect people pro "War on Terrorism" due to fear of dieign from a terroist attack, must be positively white with fear everytime they get in a car....</p> <p>Or even when they get near a bucket... http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5006.html</p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2788#comment18