Comment by MeetingsBrowser
5 days ago
I don’t think your analysis is fair, but pointing out details I disagree with misses the forest for the trees.
Look at what lengths you went to in order to justify and defend what is, by your own arguments, the demonstrably less safe option.
Do you think that car seat mandates (up to age 12 in my state) are good policy if the net effect is:
- a small reduction in minor injuries,
- worse childhoods and parenting experiences (difficult to quantify, but real),
- and a few hundred thousand fewer children being born in the first place,
- very few, if any, lives saved?
If yes, then cool - but I strongly disagree.
If no - then I think the evidence and details very much matter, and that's why I was happy to invest my time in them.
In the hypothetical scenario where car seats have only downsides, then of course I’m against a mandate.
There is a difference between cherry picking studies that back up your view point and how medical experts set policy though.
Experts review all of the data, and ignore outliers like a paper published in a law journal that suggests car seats are the primary reason families have shrunk from having three to two kids since the 80’s
You’ve funnily proven the point of how willing people are to put immense burdens on others in the name of safety.
There is a non-zero amount of deaths the car seat law would prevent. The burden will discourage larger families and will contribute to population decline far larger than the lives saved.
You’re not only arguing for it, you’re doing it in a way as if preventing death is such an obvious single dimension to optimize that you’re calling people irrational because they are against something that reduces fatalities.
Your same argument is what leads to prohibition and a long list of other things that suck the color out of life in the interest of “safety”.
In this conversation, you have repeatedly referred to "all of the data" and "mountains of data," yet you have posted none. Meanwhile I have posted every major study on both sides of the debate! Your argument seems to be that:
- the experts have told people to use car seats
- experts wisely base policy on "all of the data"
- therefore, "all of the data" must support the claim that car seats save lives
If we're going to discuss the question of whether experts have set policy well or poorly in a particular case, then such a strong prior on "experts always set policy well and based on the best available evidence" kind of assumes the conclusion, doesn't it?
5 replies →