Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

shawmutt · Aug 1, 2008, 04:39 am

Many of the debates on this thread start with the premise “This % of people are damaged by x, therefore x is wrong”. That percent can be 0.0001%--99.9999% of a population can be unaffected or benefit from x--but it’s the 0.0001% affected that makes x wrong. Where is the arbitrary line drawn? When does the risk outweigh the benefit? I believe every issue should be handled with a great deal of perspective. Yes, it’s unfortunate for anyone to suffer, but when does appeal to emotion become an issue that needs to be acted on?

Thanatos · Aug 1, 2008, 10:49 am

I happen to be a fan of 50.001%. We're about to get into a discussion of the varying degrees of harm, like how many people have to die from pollution from a factory to outweigh the number of jobs said factory creates.

tommy5x · Aug 1, 2008, 06:16 pm

The answer is subjective, entirely dependant on what x is.

Clearly the comment that 0.00001% of people are allergic to pennicilin (hypothetical) therefore pennicilin is wrong is flawed, in that pennicilin helps a far greater proportion of the population than are hindered by it; whereas to say that 0.00001% of people on earth are going to be slowly tortured to death if you eat that stick of celery, by most moral standards at least, makes eating the celery 'bad.'

Aug 1, 2008, 04:39 am	#1 (permalink)
shawmutt Squirrel Murderer Location: Greencastle, PA Posts: 1,786 Blog Entries: 11	Is the cup 0.0001% empty, or 99.9999% full? Many of the debates on this thread start with the premise “This % of people are damaged by x, therefore x is wrong”. That percent can be 0.0001%--99.9999% of a population can be unaffected or benefit from x--but it’s the 0.0001% affected that makes x wrong. Where is the arbitrary line drawn? When does the risk outweigh the benefit? I believe every issue should be handled with a great deal of perspective. Yes, it’s unfortunate for anyone to suffer, but when does appeal to emotion become an issue that needs to be acted on? The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition. ~Carl Sagan

Aug 1, 2008, 10:49 am	#2 (permalink)
Thanatos Criminally Insane Location: New Orleans Posts: 2,757	I happen to be a fan of 50.001%. We're about to get into a discussion of the varying degrees of harm, like how many people have to die from pollution from a factory to outweigh the number of jobs said factory creates. I think it goes without saying the any suggestion to invade Canada is mind-numbingly stupid.

Aug 1, 2008, 06:16 pm	#3 (permalink)
tommy5x Erudite Location: England Posts: 133	The answer is subjective, entirely dependant on what x is. Clearly the comment that 0.00001% of people are allergic to pennicilin (hypothetical) therefore pennicilin is wrong is flawed, in that pennicilin helps a far greater proportion of the population than are hindered by it; whereas to say that 0.00001% of people on earth are going to be slowly tortured to death if you eat that stick of celery, by most moral standards at least, makes eating the celery 'bad.' When the time comes, that no more can be said, say no more.